Linux-Advocacy Digest #648, Volume #33 Mon, 16 Apr 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) ("Carman")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Paul Holloway)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: IE (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Col. Hack (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Bernd Paysan)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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.
Date: 16 Apr 2001 21:00:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:57:07 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
>>
>> >just remember we tried that bullshit lazy fairy economic bullshit once
>> >in this country. It ended in a spectular failure called the Great
>> >Depression.
>>
>> Learn how to trim posts, Comrad.
>
>Sliverdick forgets that THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET WAS IN A DEPRESSION
>(INCLUDING HIS BELOVED SOVIET UNION!!!)
Depression? Maybe you meant recession?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: 16 Apr 2001 21:02:42 GMT
Bob Hauck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:03:31 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Considering RPM's track record around here, it would be very difficult to
: > do even _as_ poorly as RPM, never mind worse.
: That comment rather reminds me of the way in which Creationists take
: disagreement among biologists about the mechanism of evolution as
: evidence that biologists disagree about whether evolution takes place.
: People argue about ways to make rpm better, and about problems with rpm,
: but few ever contemplate replacing it with the Windows way of handling
: installation.
Well it is their money, I don't see why anyone would force them to use a
proprietary format.
I have had troubles with rpm, but I don't think it's crap, just needs work.
I mean we all improve what we like, can't see why this is irrational, it's
going to give us choice. I do prefer apt-get, though, and I do wish more
corps would run alien on their rpms for me, but hey I could do that.
Fred
: --
: -| Bob Hauck
: -| Codem Systems, Inc.
: -| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Carman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:06:28 -0400
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:13:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Mysterion wrote:
> >>
> >> But who the hell WANTS to live and work in Detroit?
> >
> >Great money
> >Low cost of living.
> >
>
> The same could be said for Saudi Arabia.
Carman wrote:
Saudi Arabia doesn't allow concealed carry though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Holloway)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:05:50 GMT
On 16 Apr 2001 20:33:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
wrote:
>
>Ok, I got tired, so I will hereby provide the evidence Chad requested.
>
>I had said:
>
>>>>>>>>On 14 Apr 2001 17:46:36 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In 3000BC, the standard included massive rape of the women of the defeated
>>>>>>>>>and mass sacrifices of the defeated soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well that's not true at all.
>
>And since Chad seems to take the Bible seriously, I suppose it's as good
>a source as any.
>
>In particular, Numbers 31:
>
>7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses;
> and they slew all the males.
>
>Anyone who has studied war will tell you that it's impossible to kill
>every man in an army in combat, and that many must have been killed
>after being defeated: "mass sacrifices of the defeated soldiers".
>
>Also:
>
>12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto
> Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children
> of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near
> Jericho.
>
>Such "spoil" consisted of every one that was not killed, every woman and
>child.
>
>15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
>
>Apparently they had.
>
>16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam,
> to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a
> plague among the congregation of the LORD.
>
>Here, apparently God said not to just kill every man, but he even got mad
>because all women and children were spared.
>
>17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman
> that hath known man by lying with him.
>
>Ok, I didn't include mass assasination of defenseless women and children,
>but consider it just an oversight.
>
>18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him,
> keep alive for yourselves.
>
>Now, if you tell a murdering mob that they can keep every virgin alive for
>themselves, what do you think that means? Massive rape of the defeated
>women. Those who were not slaughtered while imprisoned, of course.
>
>Now, apparently the standard of behaviour expected by go in battle is
>a bit harsher than the current one, and he seems to get pretty mad when
>the armies get soft on him.
>
>So, anyone using the argument of "war is allowed by god" should keep
>in mind that not ANY war is allowed by him, but that he prefers those where
>every male of the losing side is killed, along with most women and children.
>
>How anyone can be a literalist, and believe that an entity that gave such
>commands is worth adoring is beyond me. I say, if this is god, then god
>can fuck himself. Since he is supposedly omnipotent, he should be able to.
>
>> Show us an example in 3000BC where
>>>>>>>>massive rape of the defeated women occurred. Since you throw
>>>>>>>>out such blatantly false statements as fact, everything you
>>>>>>>>say is questionable.
>
>Always happy to serve.
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
Would it be too much to ask for you and Chad to post this in an
*appropriate* newsgroup?
None of the ones it's being posted to has anthing to do with the
topic....*maybe* soc.singles.
Thanks for your time.
"May you always have fair winds and following seas..."
Paul Holloway
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: 16 Apr 2001 21:15:59 GMT
: Simple; someone was commenting on IS and how it was getting the use it
: deserved - because IS has a track record of doing poorly, by some set of
: standards. Fine, I won't argue that point. RPM, however, consistently
You get to pick the standards. I can pick standards to make any product 'fail'.
: fails more regularly and more annoyingly, in my experience, than IS.
: Therefore if we're going to criticize X for some behavior or set of
: behaviors, we should also criticize any Y which does the same.
Agreed.
: Why? Because I happen to think this is a good technology, and I'm using it
: as a counter to some of the typical anti-Windows noise?
Why?
: Hey, if I could find a comparable technology available free for Linux, I'd
: be a happy camper, and I'd think that Linux had made a huge stride to
: becoming a really viable contender in the enterprise market. Until its
Why don't you write this. It could be done with a script.
: management tools improve, however, it has a major strike against it. It
: also has its strong points; I'm not going anti-Linux here, but this is a big
: one against it.
B/c nobody wrote a script? This has nothing to do with os, more to do with
why is'nt linux like windows mentality instead of using what you are given
and making the tools you need and sharing them. It's a diff paradigm.
Sounds like you are spending someone else's money anyway, someone who
doesn't know all the details so I guess you can get away with this laziness.
: > Maybe you
: > could get them to port it to Linux so we could see how wonderful it is.
: > Life is easy if you only have to deal with your own products.
: MSI doesn't merely support MS products. Or perhaps you meant it only runs
: on Windows? True enough. Where can I get RPM for my C64? Or even for
: Windows?
Recompile. Can I recompile MSI for linux? Where is source?
: > > Now, let's see how RPM manages the following:
: > >
: > > 1) Roll out a product to 10,000 client machines
: >
: > Obviously RPM is not designed to do that. There are commercial
: > products
: Commercial? :)
If commercial is bad then you wouldn't be using them. Or is it inconsistent
to use commerical utilities with linux. By whose standards? I make my own
standards. Anything I do is consistent with my own behavior.
Fred
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: 16 Apr 2001 21:27:26 GMT
Roy Culley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <9b7tcc$laf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > I agree, Netscape *had* the marketshare, and then they turn on themselves
: > and destroyed it. And I'm not talking just about the developers, I'm talking
: > also the users.
: > NS4 is buggy, insecure, unstable, memory hog, and slow.
: In what way is NS4 insecure? IE has almost as many security bugs found as
: IIS. Over 100 security bugs found in Microsoft SW in 2000!
Not to mention the fact that IE _feels_ faster and is more responsive.
Fred
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Apr 2001 16:15:17 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 20:36:37 GMT, Fred K Ollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Karel Jansens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: Darin Johnson wrote:
>: >
>: > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: >
>: > > Anybody who claims to have "proved" Global warming is a fraud.
>: >
>: > And anyone who claims it doesn't exist is also a fraud! Both sides
>: > should have lots of fraudness in common.
>
>: As far as I can tell, global warming is indeed a fact.
>
>I agree, I mean who are you going to believe, a science publication like
>Nature or self-serving propaganda? I don't think that it's a question
>of global warming or no, but how much and how it's going to affect us.
>Here in PA, the weather will be warmer, NJ will go under a bit so the
>beach will be closer. In places like TX they will bake esp when the price
>of power goes up as well. Huge AC bills. Ha-ha.
>
>Fred
>
You don't think a publication like Nature engages in self-serving progaganda?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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.
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:29:58 -0400
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
>
> On 14 Apr 2001 23:34:19 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mathew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes...the Communists believe in LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of environmental
> >> > regulations on industry, with all of the economic burden which results
> >> > FOR ***OTHER*** COUNTRIES....MORON.
> >>
> >> Well name these countries,please.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >Mathew,
> >
> >I do not support Aaron's choice of words and I think you present yourself in
> >an honorable way, although I completely disagree with your arguments.
> >However, I have to say that USSR was extremely active in promoting
> >enviro-politics (Green Party in Germany was basically funded by USSR and
> >they never really deny that.
>
> If memory serves me, their support of the Greens started was part of
> their propaganda offensive against the NATO deployment of Pershing
> missiles in Europe.
Correct.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Col. Hack
Date: 16 Apr 2001 21:35:17 GMT
Pedro Coto ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > Well, all's fine and dandy if Windows supports your needs. But what if
: > you want to do something with your computer that Bill and Company have
: > decided you don't need to do? Guess what? You're Fucked!
: Stupid argument. Just by recompiling your kernel you can just select
: among the supported things at the source level.
True.
: > You can't recompile ANY Windows kernel to do ANYTHING! You're stuck
: > with it, as-is.
: Don't be confused. Compiling a kernel is a kind like installing a binary
: patch or
: a driver under Windows, so there is no need to recompile Windows kernel at
: all.
Not really. How does this make kernel faster? Does applying patches make
it more stable? Would you run a kernel that's been multiply patched? What
if patches overlap, how to keep track?
How does compiling make windows work on other architectures? How does it
optimize for you processor? This comparison is disingenous, actually.
: > Bill decides you need copy-protection at the kernel level on your sound
: > card? TOO BAD! That's what you get.
: I bet that any kernel developer would easily be able to create either a
: patch
: or a driver for a Windows system, so again if something is not supported at
: the kernel level, you're stuck too at GNU/Linux, that's what you get.
W/o source? Great programmer who can do this w/o source. I'd like to hear
details
: > Bill decides you shouldn't be able to make a Fair-Use copy of a DVD you
: > bought? TOO BAD! Let me repeat: YOU CAN'T RECOMPILE ANY WINDOWS
: > KERNEL. You CAN'T DO ANYTHING that Bill has decided you shouldn't be
: > able to do.
: False. There have been binary patches for Windows, as well as registry
: tricks since
: its creation. A good programmer can do it either under Windows or under
: GNU/Linux,
: it is just that under GNU/Linux he/she's got for free the development tools.
Not true. It's much easier to patch something in which you have source.
There are registry patches, but this has little to do with things in the
kernel.
: > Bill decides Windows is dropping support for your peripheral? Sorry!
: > You lose.
: What about he/they deciding to remove support for some things into
: the kernel ? As an example, what about ipfwadm -> ipchains -> iptables ?
: (I know iptables has backward compatibility with ipchains, although loosing
: iptables new characteristics).
You could fix it yourself. You have the source, remember.
: > Yes, Windows is easy. It's called *submission*.
: No Windows is not as easy. It's called "trying to get computer nearer to
: persons";
I thought it was just automation.
:anyway ... learning GNU/Linux or Unix is not as difficult, it is
: just called "time".
I agree.
Fred
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Apr 2001 16:27:16 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 20:08:41 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 16 Apr 2001 18:33:35 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On 16 Apr 2001 12:20:25 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Matthew 26:
>>>>>
>>>>>26: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it,
>>>>> and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
>>>>>27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying,
>>>>> "Drink from it, all of you.28 This is my blood of the covenant, which
>>>>> is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for proving my point and for providing that wonderful Bible passage.
>>>>That's not quite what you said, now is it?
>>>
>>>Actually, it pretty much is. I said "he ased his fellows to drink the wine
>>>that is his blood".
>>>
>>>Here he says to his disciples (his fellows) "drink from [this wine] all of
>>>you. This is my blood"
>>>
>>
>>See, there you go again. No he didn't. Matthew quotes him as saying:
>>"Drink from it [ the cup ]
>
>What was in the cup?
>
Probably wine, which back then was a slightly fermented grape or fruit drink.
>>, all of you.28 This is my blood of the covenant,
>>which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." He, of course,
>>was referring to the cup ("drink from it"), as in when he later asks God:
>>"if it be your will, take this cup from me".
>
>So, you say that the important thing was not drinking, but drinking
>from a specific cup?
>
No. The important thing was eating and drinking in remembrance of the sacrifice that
Christ was making of his body and blood. What you eat and drink made/makes little
difference to the "sacrament" that he introduced.
>>>>I don't see anywhere in that passage where Jesus says that drinking wine on
>>>>Sundays expresses love for him.
>>>
>>>What day was it[1]? What was the purpose of drinking it?
>>>
>>
>>It was the eve of the passover which was Thursday night (Friday depending on
>>who you talk to).
>
>Isn't passover always a sunday? And Jewish tradition ends the days at
>sunset, so "the night before" actually means passover.
>
The Passover and Sabbath: Friday evening to Saturday evening.
>> He asked that they do this in "remembrance of me" and said
>>to do it as often as they ate and drank.
>
>Oh, but if the important thing was not drinking but drinking from
>a specific cup, how could they do it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't say that, you did.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 16 Apr 2001 21:50:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 2001 20:08:41 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 16 Apr 2001 18:33:35 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On 16 Apr 2001 12:20:25 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthew 26:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>26: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it,
>>>>>> and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
>>>>>>27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying,
>>>>>> "Drink from it, all of you.28 This is my blood of the covenant, which
>>>>>> is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for proving my point and for providing that wonderful Bible passage.
>>>>>That's not quite what you said, now is it?
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it pretty much is. I said "he ased his fellows to drink the wine
>>>>that is his blood".
>>>>
>>>>Here he says to his disciples (his fellows) "drink from [this wine] all of
>>>>you. This is my blood"
>>>>
>>>
>>>See, there you go again. No he didn't. Matthew quotes him as saying:
>>>"Drink from it [ the cup ]
>>
>>What was in the cup?
>
>Probably wine, which back then was a slightly fermented grape or fruit drink.
Let's leave it at "wine". If it was too lightly fermented, it would turn into
vinegar in days.
>>>, all of you.28 This is my blood of the covenant,
>>>which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." He, of course,
>>>was referring to the cup ("drink from it"), as in when he later asks God:
>>>"if it be your will, take this cup from me".
>>
>>So, you say that the important thing was not drinking, but drinking
>>from a specific cup?
>>
>
>No. The important thing was eating and drinking in remembrance of the sacrifice that
>Christ was making of his body and blood. What you eat and drink made/makes little
>difference to the "sacrament" that he introduced.
Well, he seems to be specific about the eating and drinking being of bread and
wine. Where does he say that it doesn't matter if you do it with broccoli and
orange juice?
If you gonna take it seriously, you can't just ignore stuff. He gave them wine
and said "this is my blood". Why do you believe any other fluid would do?
In fact, why do catholics believe any current day wine may do? He said THAT
wine was his blood.
>>>>>I don't see anywhere in that passage where Jesus says that drinking wine on
>>>>>Sundays expresses love for him.
>>>>
>>>>What day was it[1]? What was the purpose of drinking it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was the eve of the passover which was Thursday night (Friday depending on
>>>who you talk to).
>>
>>Isn't passover always a sunday? And Jewish tradition ends the days at
>>sunset, so "the night before" actually means passover.
>
>The Passover and Sabbath: Friday evening to Saturday evening.
Parse error.
>>> He asked that they do this in "remembrance of me" and said
>>>to do it as often as they ate and drank.
>>
>>Oh, but if the important thing was not drinking but drinking from
>>a specific cup, how could they do it?
>
>I didn't say that, you did.
Actually, I asked you if you said that, and qualified it in this occasion
with an "if", so it was subject to your response to teh "So you say"
above.
--
Roberto Alsina (feeling either jesuitic or talmudic, and not decided yet)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Apr 2001 16:46:32 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 20:33:29 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ok, I got tired, so I will hereby provide the evidence Chad requested.
>
>I had said:
>
>>>>>>>>On 14 Apr 2001 17:46:36 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In 3000BC, the standard included massive rape of the women of the defeated
>>>>>>>>>and mass sacrifices of the defeated soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well that's not true at all.
>
>And since Chad seems to take the Bible seriously, I suppose it's as good
>a source as any.
>
>In particular, Numbers 31:
>
Again, you have proven my point for me. Thank you.
First. The incidents described in Number 31 occurred around
1300BC 1200BC...not exactly 3000BC, now is it?
Second:
I specifically challenged your false assertion of "In 3000BC, the
standard included massive rape of the women of the defeated". I
never challenged that there was a whole lot of killing going on.
Even though this all occurred about 1700 years after 3000BC....
Moses was specifically purging anyone who had sexual relations with the
captive women. The Jewish people were very particular about what situations
sexual relations were allowed. Most likely they kept the women captives
as either slaves or to make as part of their group to eventually marry.
There was certainly no "standard of massive rape of the women of the
defeated". In fact, the exact opposite was the standard because this was
specifically prohibited by their laws, and God certainly never told them
to.
>
>> Show us an example in 3000BC where
>>>>>>>>massive rape of the defeated women occurred. Since you throw
>>>>>>>>out such blatantly false statements as fact, everything you
>>>>>>>>say is questionable.
>
>Always happy to serve.
>
Thank you for proving my point and conceding so happily.
------------------------------
From: Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:32:35 +0200
John Gregor wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can see that Intel doesn't abuse the monopoly power,
>
> Back in the early 90's, the ACE consortium was formed to try and
> create a market for MIPS-based machines. From what I've heard, at
> least one major PC vendor was interested in joining, but Intel
> hinted to them that their supply of Pentiums might be in jeopardy
> if they did. That's clearly an anticompetitive action and they
> should have been nailed for it.
In the early 90s, I'd say, Intel was much worse than it is now. Back
then, it was the Microsoft-Intel duopoly. If Intel today said to a
customer "If you don't stop doing xxx, we'll drop you from our delivery
list", the customer would reply, "Baah, drop me, I'll buy AMDs", Intel's
stock would be 20% down (and AMD's 30% down ;-)...
> Just because the prices are falling does not mean there is no abuse
> of monopoly power. The question is whether prices could have fallen
> even more in an open market or if other innovations have been
> stifled.
The sheer volume of Intel processors certainly stiffle other
innovations, no question. But that's just the bad effect of this
monopoly; no additional abuse required.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Apr 2001 16:49:34 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 19:54:47 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:48:28 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>>
>>> Just as a follow up for Pete to read, isn't libc one of the most
>>> important libraries on the OS? hence, its not just one of those minor
>>> ones, its a major one, and requires no reboot. Now thats what I call
>>> convenient.
>>
>>Yes. without libc, NOTHING works.
>
>Well, here again Aaron shows how little he knows about the inner
>workings of a unix system.
>
>Had he said "nothing works" I would have let it pass. But no,
>he had to say "NOTHING works".
>
You are hardly one who can start quibbling about semantics. I am still
waiting for your explanation on your "3000BC" nonsense. You seem to think
3000BC and 1300BC are pretty much the same thing.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
