Linux-Advocacy Digest #364, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism confession ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:04:39 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Beth in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:41:20 +0100;
> >T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Beth scribed:
> >> >T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> >> Beth suggested:
> >> [...]
> >> Well, I know that, and you know that, but Aaron? He don't know that.
> >
> >Yes; But that doesn't negate what I say, does it? Just because he's ignorant
> >of basic facts like this, doesn't proclude them from being true...
>
> My point was that your presumption that Aaron is not blindly prejudiced
> is, as he would say, a "false premise".
>
> >My point was, as you yourself have confirmed in this post, that blind
> >prejudice (yes, I've just noticed my terrible spelling error...hey! Spelling
> >Troll! Where are you when I need you? lol ;) is the default - the norm - we
> >all, to greater or lesser extents, work from some sort of blind prejudice
> >towards something...
>
> I would humbly disagree with you. Blind and ignorant, we create our
> prejudices from whole cloth; they do not come automatically.
> "Ignorance" fits your comments much better than "blind prejudice", which
> must, I think, by its formulation (prejudice is by nature not seeing
> [ignoring individual truth for a blanket truth]) be a rather studious
> ignorance, like Aaron illustrates, rather than the simple "I need a
> default value" kind of "pre-judging" that you describe.
>
> >so, the notion of dismissing someone on those grounds
> >would infer that everyone should dismiss everyone else in all cases without
> >question...basically, if you hold with that notion and follow its character
> >to the letter, then you end up doing the bully/ignore stuff that Aaron is
> >doing...
>
> One should NEVER 'dismiss' ignorance. One should ALWAYS 'dismiss'
> purposeful ignorance.
>
> >Maybe your cause is just and Aaron's not (or, to be fair, as I'm not the
> >"Keeper of the Truth" or anything - so I can't insist that I'm correct, even
> >if I believe so - thus, possibly vica versa...though, I pray that not the
> >case :) but your strategies are very similar...identical, even...so,
> >basically - even though I'd most probably side with you on this matter - by
> >what right to you proclaim yourself to be "correct" and Aaron "wrong"?
>
> You obviously just haven't been around long enough. I'll forgive you
> that grievous insult, Beth, because you're new to the group.
>
> >Do you see what I'm getting at? It is NOT sufficient merely to be "correct"
> >in what you state...you must also be "correct" in how you say it...Aaron may
> >(though, I stress, I certainly don't think so at all ;) be "correct" in his
> >opinion of communists but does that automagically make it justifiable for
> >him to murder people?
>
> If one is not correct in "how you say it", one is not correct in "what
> you state". Invert them, the case is still true, undeniably. It is not
> necessarily logical, but no human could understand it and still deny it.
> "The message is the medium," as they say.
>
> IF Aaron's opinions on communists are correct then, yes, it
> 'automagically' makes it justifiable for him to murder people, because
> whether you are aware of it or not, that is his opinion of communists:
> it is justifiable to murder them. Along with any other person who
> disagrees with him, should he gain the political will to enact such
> measures, which he will collectively and individually refer to as
> "communists" in order to make this point clear: to disagree with him is
> to be wrong, and to be wrong sacrifices your rights, as far as he is
> concerned.
>
> >By such rationale, I could kill all the people in the world and this would -
> >without doubt - eliminate all crime...but, surely, it is NOT justifiable to
> >commit absolute genocide (surely, the greatest crime there is :) to
> >eliminate crime...it's nonsensical...
>
> Your false premise is again obvious: that Aaron's thinking is as
> sensible as yours.
>
> >Therefore, is it justifiable to become a fascist (of any sort at all) in
> >order to eradicate fascists? Of course not, because you are NOT eliminating
> >the problem in the slightest...you are just swapping one fascist for
> >another...ironically, you will just be taking the place of your enemies...
>
> Which is why it is so hilariously ironic when he starts screaming about
> fascists. :-)
>
> >The end does NOT justify the means...however noble and correct that end is,
> >it MUST be achieved correctly...that is, the "means" are ends unto
> >themselves...they are smaller "ends", so to speak...sub-divisions of the
> >greater "end"...
>
> The distinction between an end and a means is entirely metaphysical, I'm
> afraid. That means it doesn't actually exist, whether you can consider
> it mentally or not.
>
> [...]
> >> The very phrase "blind prejudice" means what you identify as its
> >> results. If someone's beliefs are based on blind prejudice, they will
> >> not tally with anyone's but those likewise holding blind prejudice.
> >
> >Correct; And have either of us lived in a communist regime? Are we not also
> >speaking from "blind prejudice"?
>
> Not at all. We may speak from ignorance, we may even be prejudiced.
> But it is ONLY the fascist who speaks from "blind prejudice".
>
> >And, even if we weren't on this particular score, then we are surely stating
> >"preconceived opinion and bias" (that's the Oxford dictionary definition of
> >the word...I looked it up :) at some occasion...we cannot know everything,
> >thus, we cannot know that we're right...no matter how much evidence we could
> >muster because that only makes it more likely, it does not make it fact
> >until ALL the evidence - possible or impossible - is gathered...
>
> Again, you miss the fact that we aren't discussing simply "prejudice".
>
> >Basically, I'm trying to point out that whether you are right or you are
> >wrong, you are still subject to all the same "laws" as Aaron is...having the
> >"correct" opinion on something is NOT sufficient, you must strive for that
> >ideal or whatever for you to be "correct"...owning the truth does not make
> >you true...knowing what's right does not make you just...
>
> That depends on your definition of "make" and "know". There is truth to
> the presumption that any reasonable person who understands the concept
> of "justice" is, unavoidably, "just". Sometimes more just and sometimes
> less just, perhaps, but he will inevitably and unavoidably from that
> moment of understanding forward be on the scale of "just".
>
> >For that, you must do as you say...practice what you preach...you cannot
> >oppress those who would oppress others, no matter how justified your cause
> >may be...or you are no better than they...
>
> Who? Me? For recognizing Aaron as a fascist? Who put the bee in your
> bonnet, honey? ;-)
>
> >It is possibly the hardest pill to swallow but you MUST turn the other cheek
> >when someone strikes at you...this does NOT mean inaction, as people often
> >mistake it to mean...the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jesus, Gandhi and others
> >were far from inactive, yes? But they could not strike at their "enemies",
> >how their enemies striked at them or they would be NO better than them...you
> >may fly a flag of a different colour but that is NEVER sufficient to be
> >"right" in itself...
>
> Sorry, yes it is. We know it is because, despite the apparently
> boundless constructs of philosophy, there IS a real physical world; it
> is not a construct of our imaginations. Some flags are rational
> colored, some flags are not. Some flags mark "here is a tautology" (a
> fact", some flags mark "here is an opinion". I'm not making any
> absolute declarations about which are which or where. I am saying that
> you are being academically, not reasonably, skeptical concerning what is
> "right". If this were not the case, the only thing that would make
> Gandhi any better than those he "fought" would be that he won and they
> lost.
>
> >You must employ this or, by the same rationale that someone may use to
> >dismiss their enemies, will just be applied straight on back at you...an eye
> >for an eye just leaves everyone blind...
>
> DDTT. Nothing I say, think, or do will prevent someone else from
> rationalizing me as their enemy, should they wish to do so. To pretend
> that this is not possible as long as I don't have any opinions about
> what political philosophies are "right" is senseless.
>
> >> Anyone else is, indeed, capable of contributing and may or may not be
> >> correct, regardless of their viewpoint. At least we presume that in
> >> Socratic ignorance; in real life, we know what we like, and so if we are
> >> happy in our situation, we "believe in" the system which defines it. It
> >> is not "blind prejudice" to love democracy, for an American, even if he
> >> cannot elucidate the philosophical reasons he 'does', or 'should'.
> >
> >Yes; And an American cannot truely consider themselves American unless they
> >respect the first amendment and allow anyone to speak their opinions,
> >whatever those opinions may be...let me clarify; There is more than one
> >definition of "American"...a person may consider themselves American by
> >birth in that country...but, then, unlike other countries in the world - as
> >was it's foundation - others born in other countries still are premitted the
> >right to call themselves "American" (the huddled masses ;)...so what is the
> >real definition here?
>
> A citizen of the United States of America. It is an entirely
> unambiguous and unchanging definition. The huddled masses are only
> "allowed" to call themselves American when they become citizens.
>
> >Simple; The American constitution (plus, flag/law/etc. :)...this was one of
> >the main reasons for its conception...an "American" (in their hearts and
> >minds...a =true= American :) is someone who pledges allegiance to the flag,
> >the country and - most importantly - the foundation, the embodiment of that
> >country - namely the American constitution...
>
> There is a valid and ongoing debate about pledging allegiance to the
> flag. And the Constitution is sewn with the seeds of its own demise, by
> resting on the Declaration of Independence, which states that revolution
> is always possible, and is sometimes a moral obligation.
>
> >That constitution absolutely defends the right for anyone to state their
> >opinion and to believe whatever they wish to believe...the freedom of speech
> >and religion...
> >
> >Basically, anyone who does not also defend those rights is severely
> >jepordising their status as an true "American"...by the very definition and
> >spirit of the constitution itself...
>
> So its unpatriotic to say "Shut up, you're talking gibberish!" Yet
> still, sometimes its necessary, because gibberish is not intelligible
> (quite like Aaron's philosophy) but still counts as "speech".
>
> >Now, you may be saying "wait a minute! you're not an American"...quite
> >right...wouldn't claim otherwise...but there is a reason those rights are
> >present and defended in the American constitution because they are basic
> >human rights...as supported - in different phrasiology - under the
> >international human rights convention (which is still not fully
> >respected...sometimes it's hard not to despair at mankind)...
>
> Unfortunately, Locke's "basic human rights", which you very adequately
> defend, are undoubtedly and inherently predicated on the assumption
> there is a God. Not even the Founding Fathers necessarily agreed with
> this, and it doesn't prevent Locke's human rights from being meaningful
> just because you may be an atheist. But it is troubling, at least in
> comparison to your rhetoric. Because if the things you value (free
> speech, freedom of religion) are predicated on a principle you disagree
> with (that God is the almighty ruler of the universe), then your
> philosophy is flawed. A flawed philosophy cannot be considered the
> equal of an unflawed philosophy; it would be "wrong".
>
> [...]
> >> >thus, your opinions may be of a more
> >> >liberal nature than Aaron's but you employ the same bully/ignore tactics...I
> >> >would definitely agree with your opinions more than Aaron, from what has
> >> >been said, but I fail to see what separates your tactics from his...
> >>
> >> I think you meant 'strategy', rather than 'tactics', or perhaps
> >> "position" versus opinions. His blind prejudice and my rational
> >> evaluation do indeed correspond on some points. As I've said before,
> >> that doesn't mean that his points are constructive, nor that my points
> >> are not.
> >
> >And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make; Why is his opinion "blind
> >prejudice" and your opinion "rational evalution"?
>
> If I were to say "because it is", you would no doubt presume that this
> is a teleological explanation (he is wrong because I say so), rather
> than an empirical observation (because he is wrong and I am right, in
> relationship to the discussion, our statements, and the logical
> conclusions drawn from them and observation of the world in which the
> conversation takes place). It is a true statement, in my opinion, not
> teleologically, but empirically.
>
> >I see two sides, yes...but
> >they're on the same coin...Aaron could turn around and make exactly the same
> >case for his arguments...that you speak out of "blind prejudice" brought
> >about by swallowing whatever politically correct BS is about and that his
> >opinion is "rational evalution" of
> >the "real" situation...again, knowing "the truth" doesn't make you right...
>
> You think this surprises us? Just how long have you been on Usenet,
> Beth?
>
> >I'm saying that _both_ of you are not being constructive because you are
> >both plants with their roots firmly in the ground...nothing wrong with being
> >strong and true to your opinions...but if you're too rigid then you're stem
> >will just snap...yes, too flexible and your stem won't even stand up but
> >there's the balance for you...
>
> I'm saying your definition of "constructive" is needlessly arbitrary and
> unintelligible, to boot.
>
> [...]
> >> You haven't been talking to Aaron long enough. He doesn't "think" I'm
> >> wrong; he considers it a given, since I disagree with him.
> >
> >Well, I meant "thinks" as in that is his opinion (i.e. it is the thoughts in
> >his head :)...the degree to which he holds that opinion I wasn't trying to
> >hint at...
>
> Nor I. It is not the degree to which he holds it which is at issue, but
> merely the forms he uses to justify it. That is what constitutes
> "thought" for Aaron, proving his blind prejudice to be right. The same,
> obviously, can be said for me, you, or anybody. But I wouldn't put the
> word in quotes for me or you.
>
> >And, yes, I haven't been talking to Aaron long enough but I've seen this
> >sort of "debate" a million times and it's always the same thing again and
> >again...Aaron probably won't listen to you because it's all routine...do you
> >know what a pantomime is? They always have a section in every pantomime
> >where one character says: "Oh no it isn't" and the other character replies:
> >"Oh yes it is" and they ping-pong these responses back and forth - adding
> >emphasis each time...it's meant to be comedic but it bears too much
> >resemblence to most "debate" in this world that I could never find it that
> >funny...
>
> In the US, the word "pantomime" means they don't speak at all, or
> generally make any sound.
>
> >> >no amount of "I'm right, you're
> >> >wrong" will EVER change that...in fact, it will only make the situation
> >> >worse because they feel you're forcing them to think as you do...no
> >matter
> >> >how liberal your opinions, to Aaron, you are being a facist and forcing
> >your
> >> >opinions on him...
> >>
> >> Its the other way around, Beth.
> >
> >lol...don't you see my point? It's symmetrical...yes, of course, it's the
> >other way around...it's BOTH ways round...it's symmetrical...that's my whole
> >point...and that's what everyone who employs bully/ignore tactics
> >misses...such tactics can only work - only make sense - when you sit in a
> >priviledged position - outside the fray - when it's non-symmetric...BUT this
> >doesn't actually happen in reality because everyone automatically assumes
> >they're right and assumes that this means they are "better" than the other
> >person...hence non-symmetric...the basic problem here is that no-one is
> >"better" in these cases and it _is_ a symmetrical thing...
>
> No, it is not symmetrical; it *appears* symmetrical. It could only be
> symmetrical if there weren't actually a physical world which is 'true',
> while all imaginary worlds are, non-symmetrically, 'false'. You are
> belaboring a trivially obvious point: that it is not possible within
> such a discussion to prove which is true and which is false, a priori.
> But you are using it, I think, to mask (even from yourself) a far less
> trivial point: there is true and false, a priori.
>
> [...]
> >Maybe "better a fascist than a Kulkis" (not a very nice thing to say,
> >though, is it? Odd how your compassion runs out all of a sudden, once
> >someone disagrees with you, eh?
>
> All at once? Once someone disagrees with me? No, it leaks out little
> by little, starting when I was born, and ending when I die. Your
> attempts to belittle me are getting rather annoying. Believe me, I've
> been over all this with lots of people, and you've not brought up a
> single original or surprising (or even extremely interesting) point yet,
> Beth.
>
> [...]
>
Max, you should know better than to argue with a woman.
Everybody knows they don't think like people.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:06:43 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Apr 2001 19:01:32 GMT;
> [...]
> >>> A pity. If you had not been so thoroughly brainwashed, you could
> >>> have been a person.
> >>
> >>You have failed to name even one person whom I have wrongfully killed.
> >
> >You are willing to kill, and you believe that's good. That's enough to
> >make you a brainwashed waste.
>
> I disagree. Not all military personnel are brainwashed wastes, just
> because Aaron is. I believe, as well, that it is "good" to be willing
> to kill when necessary. I believe, however, unlike Aaron, that it is
> "bad" to be sure you know when it is or is not necessary.
>
> [...]
> >>There's a word for military personell who refuse to obey Congress's
> >>decision to go to war: DESERTER.
>
> Actually, if you desert in time of war, you're a traitor, aren't you?
No..you can be a deserter without being a traitor...even though both
are capital offences.
> The only time desertion is punishable by death, at least.
true.
>
> >Well, my point is that noone should be military personell in the
> >first place, because it's a bad thing to do.
>
> That's either very idealistic or very naive, and its debatable if there
> is, in fact, a difference.
precisely.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism confession
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:06:50 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >>
> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >> >>
> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >> >> >>
> Aaron> You know...name some Communist-style government policies that
> Aaron> you disagree with.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Forgery alert, the original statement by the liar Mr. Kulkis was
> >> >> >> "that you agree with". He, unwilling to admit his error, chose
> >> >> >> to lie.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> His original statement was in message id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Can't think of any in the real world.
> >> >> >>
> Aaron> then you're a Communist.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because I do not agree with any of their policies?
> >> >> >>
> Aaron> You just said that you can't think of any that you do disagree with.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are a cowardly lying sack of shit.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Please explain your "logic"?
> >> >> >> >>
> Aaron> Thank you for admitting that you are an enemy of the US Constitution.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No, that would be you, for your communist like calls for the deaths
> >> >> >> >> of those that disagree with you.
> Aaron> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >> >>
> Aaron> You misspelled "have contempt for the Constitution"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, you are lying, again.
> >> >> >>
> Aaron> This fact will be recorded for posterity.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What you imagine to be facts and reality seldom concur.
> >> >> >>
> Aaron> Heheheheheheh
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Shut up forger.
> >> >>
> Aaron> Pot Snow Black.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, unlike you I tell the truth.
>
> Aaron> Your are obviously using a definition of "truth" that is unknown to the
>rest of us.
>
> >> You have delusions of adequacy.
>
> Aaron> Yes, I'm always underestimating myself.
>
> I can see how you underestimate your capacity for honesty.
>
> >> >> Kulkis, cowardly lying forger. And I have the proof.
>
> Aaron> blah blah blah.
>
> >> See what I mean about being cowardly?
>
> Aaron> Ever been in combat?
>
> I do not lie and forge to try and hide my mistakes, the way cowards
> like you do.
>
Translation: No.
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:08:24 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Apr 2001
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001
>
>: >this to a person such as yourself, who is well-known
>: >as a trolling wanker, is ultimately useless anyway.
>
>: I am not a trolling wanker. I'm an annoying philosopher who
>: carpet-bombs alt.destroy.microsoft. You post, I'll respond.
>
>Oh God. He's a "philosopher".
Sorry; I meant "amateur philosopher." By trade I am a network
management consultant.
>Possibly the most
>worthless human beings on the planet.
Well, I think we've pegged your intellectual potential. Go buy some
more lotto tickets.
>There is
>only one way to deal with philosophers... ignore
>them completely. Logic isn't a matter of reason
>for them... it's a matter of percpetion, which
>is a nice way of saying "it's utter stupidity".
Or, alternatively, "I don't understand it."
>Max, you're a cesspool of non-reasoning, and
>ill-concieved logic. Now FOAD and die you
>sandal-wearing tuition-sucking university-
>dwelling pipe-smoking punkass.
I've never even been to college, unless you count a couple courses at
community college.
>Ghod, to think that I even wasted on post
>on you... ugh!
>
>*KER-PLOINK!*
When someone is that frightened of philosophy, you know its just gotta
be something juicy that makes them so scared to think too hard.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
