Linux-Advocacy Digest #649, Volume #33 Mon, 16 Apr 01 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure (Scott Moore)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: To Eric FunkenBush ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Roberto Alsina)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:12:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
I wouldn't know, my knowledge of bible dates is sketchy. If you say it
happened in 1300BC, then so be it, and consider my 3000BC date incorrect.
However, are you saying that hundreds of years of direct contact to god made
the israelits MORE RUTHLESS?
>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.
Mind you, if you replace "massive rape of the women" with "massive
slaughter of babies" in the original post it makes absolutely no
difference. This is all just a digression.
>Even though this all occurred about 1700 years after 3000BC....
>Moses was specifically purging anyone who had sexual relations with the
>captive women.
Where is that? I read, and they kill every woman who had sex, not
every man that had sex with the women. And the virgins are kept for
the mob!
> The Jewish people were very particular about what situations
>sexual relations were allowed.
Indeed. For example, virgins could be offered to raping mobs
by their father in exchange for a guest being left in peace.
> Most likely they kept the women captives
>as either slaves or to make as part of their group to eventually marry.
And several of them as human sacrifice, if you read a little further.
How do you know they were kept for marriage? Slavery and rape sounds
more akin to the general behaviour described in the passage.
>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.
Care to cite where that is? Do you put rape as morally worse than killing
babies?
>>> 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
What precisely was your point?
> and conceding so happily.
What do you believe I am conceding? That the 3000BC date was wrong?
Hell, that's such a collateral issue it makes no difference whatsoever
to the real argument: does god allow war? does war go against the
commandments? Is the commandment about any kind of killing or a
specific kind?
Heck, let's start another digression: do you believe this massacre was a
holy endeavour?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 16:58:54 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 21:50:34 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
>
Follow your own advice. Matthew doesn't quote him as saying "this is my blood"
he quotes Jesus as saying "this is My blood of the new covenant". Not the same
thing, now is it?
>In fact, why do catholics believe any current day wine may do? He said THAT
>wine was his blood.
>
No he didn't. Matthew quotes him as saying "This is My blood of the new covenant".
>>>>>>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.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: 16 Apr 2001 22:14:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Chad, this was a technical matter. I dealt with it. The other matter is
in the other thread, and I just replied to it, perhaps ten minutes
after you posted, so keep this "still waiting" crap for yourself.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Scott Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:16:41 -0700
They have worked very hard, and made sure that Microsoft is secure.
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Security Focus is running this story of comments by the Head of
> Microsoft's security response team at the RSA Conference:
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/templates/article.html%3Fid%3D191
>
> I think some of the arguments are self-serving and utterly disingenuous.
> For example:
>
> `By contrast, Microsoft does extensive testing on every product, and on
> every patch, said Lipner. "People ask us why our security patches take so
> long. One of the reasons they take so long is because we test them."'
>
> `Lipner, who oversees Microsoft's response to newly-reported security
> holes in its products, took the opportunity to point out "the repeated and
> recurring vulnerabilities in the Unix utilities BIND, WU-FTP, and so on.
> The repeated theme is people use this stuff, but they don't spend time
> security reviewing."'
>
> `"An encryption algorithm is relatively simple, compared to a 40 million
> line operating system," Lipner argued. "And the discovery of an individual
> software flaw doesn't pay off much... It doesn't win anyone fame and
> fortune... People fix the flaw and move on."'
>
> And in response to that point Lipner, it's not Linux that contains
> 40,000,000 lines of code to review and debug.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
------------------------------
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 22:17:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>, 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?
>>
>
>Follow your own advice. Matthew doesn't quote him as saying "this is my blood"
>he quotes Jesus as saying "this is My blood of the new covenant". Not the same
>thing, now is it?
What's the difference? BTW: I saw "my blood of the covenant" not "of the new
covenant".
>>In fact, why do catholics believe any current day wine may do? He said THAT
>>wine was his blood.
>
>No he didn't. Matthew quotes him as saying "This is My blood of the new covenant".
Ok, whatever. "In fact, why do catholics believe any current day wine may do? He
said THAT wine was his blood of the new covenant". happy?
I don't see how that makes any difference whatsoever to the question.
Care to answer?
You seem to have a knack to consider a quibble with the question an answer
to the question.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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,
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:32:56 -0400
Carman wrote:
>
> 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.
Ever see what they do to hoodlums who would cause anybody to need them?
thieves get their right hand CHOPPED OFF.
Muggers and murders are put to death BY STONING.
And quick-and-speedy trial is the rule. Most sentances are carried
out within one month of arrest.
Swift and sure punishment for crimes makes for a very low-crime society.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:34:45 -0400
Roberto Alsina 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".
>
> Bullshit, Aaron. Read this and weep (if you understand it):
>
> [ralsina@pc03 ralsina]$ ldd /sbin/* |grep "not a"|wc -l
> 16
>
> Ok, you probably didn't. Here it is in detail: no dynamic
> binary will work. But all static ones will.
Who uses staticly linked apps these days?
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (Who remembers systems where there was no
> libc binary at all)
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:37:28 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> Haven't you noticed that C++ programs take five times as long to compile,
> and the result is considerably larger?
C programs compiled as C++ are larger because C++ programs have features
that C doesn't have, such as global object instantiation and exception
handling. The startup code must do more for a C++ program. Of course, the
linker could be smarter about this and it could link in the standard C
startup code when the expanded features aren't in the code.
This is an implementation detail though and not something defined by the
language. It could be fixed if it were that big of a deal, but apparently
it's not.
C++ programs on average take longer because they include more stuff, causing
the compiler to do more work. This is aggravated by people tending to
#include stuff more often in C++ when they don't really need to. This is
more of a programmer discipline issue. Dependancies should be as minimal as
possible, but many people simply don't do this.
Again, it's really not technically the compilers fault, but rather
programmer fault. The same C program compiled as C++ should include the
exact same files as the same program compiled as C. This may not be the
case with g++, but it certainly is with compilers like MetroWerks or VC++.
> prime example, although any massively large C++ project will do. On my
> poor widdle 300MHz box, almost every source tarball in KDE took between
one
> and two hours to compile. Is KDE really *that* big?
Yes, it's that big. Remember, it includes all of QT as well.
> On a side note, I find most of C99 rather disappointing, for exactly the
> same reasons.
You don't have to use all the new features, and there are ways to reduce the
hits that you percieve. You just have to know what you're doing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 16 Apr 2001 22:37:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:32:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Carman wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Ever see what they do to hoodlums who would cause anybody to need them?
>
>thieves get their right hand CHOPPED OFF.
>Muggers and murders are put to death BY STONING.
>
>And quick-and-speedy trial is the rule. Most sentances are carried
>out within one month of arrest.
>
>Swift and sure punishment for crimes makes for a very low-crime society.
You know, the same could be said about communist russia.
You would make a good Taliban, Aaron.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 17:23:45 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 22:12:44 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>I wouldn't know, my knowledge of bible dates is sketchy. If you say it
>happened in 1300BC, then so be it, and consider my 3000BC date incorrect.
>
OK. thanks.
>However, are you saying that hundreds of years of direct contact to god made
>the israelits MORE RUTHLESS?
>
Thousands of years of contact with God didn't do the Israelites much good.
Their fault, not God's.
>>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.
>
>Mind you, if you replace "massive rape of the women" with "massive
>slaughter of babies" in the original post it makes absolutely no
>difference. This is all just a digression.
>
If you had made the same statement about a "standard" of massive killing
of babies in 3000BC, I would have called you on that too.
> [ - snip -]
>
>>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.
>
>Care to cite where that is? Do you put rape as morally worse than killing
>babies?
>
I think they are both equally reprehensible.
>>>> 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
>
>What precisely was your point?
>
>> and conceding so happily.
>
>What do you believe I am conceding? That the 3000BC date was wrong?
That there was no standard in 3000BC of massive rape of women of the defeated.
>Hell, that's such a collateral issue it makes no difference whatsoever
>to the real argument: does god allow war? does war go against the
>commandments? Is the commandment about any kind of killing or a
>specific kind?
>
Yes. No. A specific kind.
You were trying to make your false assertion a supporting point in your
argument about the above.
>Heck, let's start another digression: do you believe this massacre was a
>holy endeavour?
>
I don't know.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: 16 Apr 2001 22:39:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:34:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina 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".
>>
>> Bullshit, Aaron. Read this and weep (if you understand it):
>>
>> [ralsina@pc03 ralsina]$ ldd /sbin/* |grep "not a"|wc -l
>> 16
>>
>> Ok, you probably didn't. Here it is in detail: no dynamic
>> binary will work. But all static ones will.
>
>Who uses staticly linked apps these days?
You. Perhaps you didn't understad the meaning of
$ ldd /sbin/* |grep "not a"|wc -l
16
?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:44:43 +1200
<snype>
Look at the number of people who are sent over from the US to Aussie and
NZ for government appointments who request these giant houses, then you
will see.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
