Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #33 Mon, 23 Apr 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Ace Agincourt)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Bud Frawley)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Ace Agincourt)
Re: What's the point (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Roberto
Alsina)
Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("Hullo")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Jim Stock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.jackie-tokeman
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:31:28 -0400
The Danimal wrote:
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > jet wrote:
> > > The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > jet wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:vEFE6.1319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any man who supports Feminism is a self-flagellating idiot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any man who thinks a woman should be paid the same for equal work is a
>self
> > > > > > > flagellating idiot?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, if he tries to sell that idea to the International Olympic
> > > > Committee. Currently women earn the same medals as men
> > > > for inferior work.
> > >
> > > LOfuckingL. Are you the winner of the "Stupidest Possible Response" contest?
> >
> > that honor is yours.
>
> Jet is so committed to attaining unilateral advantage for women
> that wherever it occurs it looks like "equality" to Jet. By that
> I mean Jet is actually incapable of comprehending any inequality
> that favors women. Jet is suffused with the same degree of
> self-bias that we commonly see among three-year-olds.
>
> If a typical three-year-old sees other children getting more
> than she does, she complains that it isn't "fair." But when
> the three-year-old gets more than the other children get, not
> only does she not complain but she actually doesn't see her
> unfair advantage as shameful.
>
> Most adults tend to do this too, of course. Almost nobody will
> voluntarily give up a racket if they're getting away with it.
> But when you call a morally mature adult on it, he or she will
> at least concede that working the system in one area undermines
> his or her claim to hold the high moral ground.
>
> Which is to say that Jet-style feminists are not morally mature
> adults.
>
> > > > In sports with objective criteria (e.g.,
> > > > track and field, weightlifting, running, cycling, swimming, etc.)
> > > > the women's gold medal winners often could not qualify for
> > > > the men's events, let alone win them. Typically the world
> > > > champion woman will rank behind 100 or more men.
> > >
> > > And I'm sure you'd rank about 1000 behind them. Um, so what?
>
> Defeating me is not sufficient to earn an Olympic medal. To do that
> you have to defeat the best athletes in the world in a given event,
> if you are a man. If you are a woman, you can earn an Olympic medal
> for doing considerably less.
>
> Women claim entitlement to equal reward for inferior
> work in an area where their skill distribution is measurably lower
> than that of men. That instantly blows their credibility when they
> claim to be doing equal work in some other area that is harder to
> measure. If it turns out that women are in fact inferior in that
> other area as well, then without a doubt feminist unilateral
> advantage-seekers would claim it is "fair" to reward women
> equally in that area.
>
> > so women should know thier place just as he does.
> > hth
>
> An athlete who fails to defeat all competitors in his or her sport
> has not earned a gold medal.
>
> Women could still earn a few medals in fair competition, for
> example in gymnastics or synchronized swimming where men do not
> enter particular events. There are even a few events where a
> woman actually beats all the men once in a while (motorsports,
> mushing, horse racing, and other sports where machines or
> animals do the work).
>
> > > > What is the nature of "the same work" that entitles a woman to
> > > > half of a net worth that she does not earn?
> > > >
> > > > As long as you support marital theft via the divorce industry/
> > > > police state complex, you are simply blowing smoke again with
> > > > your laughably disingenuous "equal pay for equal work" sloganeering.
> > >
> > > Poor bitter boy. Got reamed in court?
>
> Apparently Jet thinks I am unable to learn from the experiences
> of other people.
>
> Jet, do you despise the KKK because they have burned crosses
> on your lawn? Or are you able to perceive a threat to your interests
> from the way the KKK has treated other people you haven't even met
> who superficially resemble you?
>
> In any case, I thank you Jet for conceding that you are lying as
> usual when you toss out your typical bullshit about "equal pay for
> equal work." As you make abundantly clear right on schedule your
> only real interest is gaining unilateral advantage. You can't
> even address an instance of the system favoring women.
>
> > i believe danno is one of the few single guys here who haven't been.
> > but he's a very shy boy so you never know.
>
> I like to preserve a little mystery. But even children are smart
> enough to figure out that if some nutcase is gunning down the other
> children (Chaney, keep your cool) he may pose a threat to them. Give
> me some credit here.
>
> > so, how's the male model boyfriend doing these days?
>
> It was considerably easier for Stella to get her groove back
> than to keep it locked in for any appreciable length of time.
>
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> --- the Danimal
I just wanted to see that again.
--
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: Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:34:57 +0100
Hi Roberto,
On 23 Apr 2001 12:46:33 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
? >Hi Roberto,
? >
? >On 22 Apr 2001 18:33:20 GMT,
? >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
? >put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? >
? >? Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
? >? >Hi Roberto,
? >? >
? >? >On 21 Apr 2001 17:58:20 GMT,
? >? >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
? >? >put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? >? >
? >? >? Ace Agincourt wrote:
? >? >? >Hi Roberto,
? >? >? >
? >? >? >On 20 Apr 2001 18:40:28 GMT,
? >? >? >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
? >? >? >put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? >? >? >
? >? >? >? billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
? >? >? >? >
? >? >? >? >"Roberto Alsina"
? >? >? >? >
? >? >? >? >> You apparently don't know what absurd means.
? >? >? >? >> You say it's not murder because it's not unlawful, right?
? >? >? >? >
? >? >? >? >No. I said killing in war is not murder, is not unlawful, is not immoral,
? >? >? >? >and is not unethical.
? >? >? >? >
? >? >? >? >You chose to believe that means I said, "it's not murder because it's not
? >? >? >? >unlawful." Something I've never said
? >? >? >?
? >? >? >? Murder is by definition unlawful. Therefore, if you say killing at war
? >? >? >? is not unlawful, the alleged lawfulness of the killing is sufficient
? >? >? >? cause for the killing not to be murder.
? >? >? >
? >? >? >
? >? >? >Serbia was at war with the Kosovas. Are you claiming that the mass
? >? >? >murders did not occur. Also, Hitler went to war against the Jews.
? >? >? >Are you a holocaust denier?
? >? >?
? >? >? I see you joined late, so my position, by reading only the above,
? >? >? could be misunderstood.
? >? >?
? >? >? I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
? >? >? killing at war, should be considered murder. I was only taking
? >? >? Billīs position to one of its many unpleasant logical outcomes.
? >? >
? >? >
? >? >So you think a man who throws a young child on an unexploded hand
? >? >grenade, to save himself, has committed no crime, moral or legal?
? >?
? >? No, I think he is stupid and a murderer.
? >?
? >? Stupid because thatīs a silly way to try to save yourself from a
? >? grenade (Itīs probably faster to try to jump away or throw the
? >? grenade instead).
? >
? >
? >So a man who throws himself onto a grenade, lobbed into a football
? >stadium, is being stupid, not a hero, as it's a silly way to save
? >others' lives.
?
? No, that guy is a hero... as long as the grenade was actually going
? to hurt someone. Apparently you see no difference between harming
? others and harming yourself?
?
? >? A murderer because he was not being attacked by the kid, so it
? >? is not self defense.
? >
? >He was acting to defend his life. That's self defense.
?
? Bzzt. Nope. Self defense has limits. You can not kill yourself
? in self defense, either.
So, you think that people are only allowed to kill in self defense if
their life is under threat *and* the person they kill is the person
who is threatening their life? All other actions killing someone for
self defense is criminal?
Best wishes, Ace.
====================
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>From this day to the ending of the world.
------------------------------
From: Bud Frawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:34:18 -0500
On 23 Apr 2001 11:52:21 -0500, Chad Everett said...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:58:14 -0500, Bud Frawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:52:42 GMT, John Jones said...
> >>
> >> "Bud Frawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:44:01 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis said...
> >> > > Bud Frawley wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:13:02 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis said...
> >> > > > > MH wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > news:9c06um$1o3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > news:vEFE6.1319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Any man who supports Feminism is a self-flagellating
> >> idiot.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Any man who thinks a woman should be paid the same for equal
> >> work is a
> >> > > > > > > > self
> >> > > > > > > > > flagellating idiot?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > No, just any man who marries one.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Any man who marries a woman who thinks she should get paid the
> >> same as a
> >> > > > > > man
> >> > > > > > > for the same work is a self flagellating idiot?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > LOL.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > J
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Pay is not the issue. I've no problem with women getting equal
> >> pay.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > But try to find a woman who TRULY does equal work...like coming in
> >> early,
> >> > > > > or staying late, as needed. Or going out of town on a business trip
> >> > > > > on short notice....or transferring half way across the country (or
> >> > > > > even to an office 20 miles farther from her house).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Quite frankly...there are reasons why the STATISTICAL AVERAGE for
> >> > > > > women's pay is so much lower than men...they refuse to go to the
> >> > > > > same lengths that men will to *EARN* it'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > LOL!!!!! I guess you just proved your not a manager! when my cousin
> >> got
> >> > > > promotyed to manager in his company he showed me the pay list! there
> >> was
> >> > > > 2 different pays 1 for men 1 for women! men got paid $13.00 an hour
> >> when
> >> > > > women got paid $9.00 an hour for the same shift! I told him it's not
> >> fair
> >> > > > and they should pay the same so he filed an greavence. they said no
> >> way.
> >> > > > he quit that job in a hurry! I bet they stop laughing when I call feds
> >> on
> >> > > > this one! they offered him mney to keep quiet but I said no way I'm
> >> > > > keepiung quiet! this is gonna hit the papers when I start talking!
> >> > >
> >> > > Men show up for work more reliably.
> >> >
> >> > LOL!!!! ya right! I left out the part when he showed me there time cards
> >> > because I knew you'd bite! the women get there every day ON TIME! when
> >> > somebody's show's up late it's always a man! those are statistics my boy!
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you know how much a production work stoppage costs a factory?
> >> > >
> >> > > A hell of more than $4.00/hour.
> >> >
> >> > LOL! like they lower there prices when it stops! you do'nt pay for when
> >> > it stops because the owner is right there! I guess you think he has to
> >> > pay himself when it stops! LOL!!!!!
> >> > >
> >> > > As long as women insist on group rights, then they will suffer
> >> > > group penalties as well.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > By the way, who put a gun to these women's heads and FORCED them
> >> > > to accept $9.00.
> >> >
> >> > thank's for proving your a complete moron! they either take $9.00 or they
> >> > get fired! that's as bad a holding a gun to there heads if you want to
> >> > support a family!
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > It appears that management offered $9.00/hour, and they accepted.
> >> >
> >> > I'm gonna say this one more time so take the beans outa your ears THAT"S
> >> > ALL THE JOB PAYS FOR WOMEN! maybe you should go back to the dumass farm!
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > All this displays is that most women are exceptionally poor
> >> > > negotiators.
> >> >
> >> > care to provide a cite? I guess not!
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > So of course, they have to get a law passed to protect them, because
> >> > > they are so strong, and equal.
> >> >
> >> > if men were paid less then women they would pass a law so fast it would
> >> > make your head spin!
> >> > >
> >>
> >> They already did - It's the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It prohibits paying
> >> people less for the same work becasue of their sex. Tell your cousin about
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >another republiCON moron which think's when a republiCON is in the white
> >house all laws for equality are all enforced! I guess you did'nt read my
> >post or you would of known they offerred him a bribe to keep quiet! I
> >guess you think they would do that if it was legal! to bad they do'nt
> >care! they pay less to women ! what part do'nt you understand? moron!
>
> This is a lie and you know it. We're still waiting for you to tell us
> what newspaper to look for this in when it "hits the papers".
>
>
I guess you'll just have to wait but it'll be a LOT of them I can tell
you that much! I hope you like egg on your face because that's what your
gonna have! LOL!!!!!!!!! my cousin said they usually pay BIG BUCKS for a
story like this! I have to get a lawyer first because my life is'nt gonna
be worth a plug nickel after this one breaks!
------------------------------
From: Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:37:42 +0100
Hi ChrisV,
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:00:36 GMT,
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
?
? >? >So you think a man who throws a young child on an unexploded hand
? >? >grenade, to save himself, has committed no crime, moral or legal?
? >?
? >? No, I think he is stupid and a murderer.
? >?
? >? Stupid because thatīs a silly way to try to save yourself from a
? >? grenade (Itīs probably faster to try to jump away or throw the
? >? grenade instead).
? >
? >So a man who throws himself onto a grenade, lobbed into a football
? >stadium, is being stupid, not a hero, as it's a silly way to save
? >others' lives.
?
? Shut up, you f'ing retard! Sheesh, you are the stupidest pile of puke
? I've ever seen post in here! And that is saying something!
Rudeness will get you nowhere.
?
? Attempting to throw a small child on a hand grenade is NOT as
? effective as throwing your own, much larger, body on it, OBVIOUSLY,
? you God-damned idiot. Now go away and take you assinine questions
? with you!
How about a person who throws (ahem - pushes) a 400 pound woman on the
grenade?
Best wishes, Ace.
====================
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>From this day to the ending of the world.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: 23 Apr 2001 17:39:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kelsey Bjarnason posted:
>"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kelsey Bjarnason posted:
>> >How long does it take a person to learn how to use a
>> >typewriter, in order to produce a document? About 10
>> >seconds.
>>
>> No way. Take somebody who've never used a typewriter before,
>> sit them down in front of one and ask them to type you up some
>> mailing labels. See if they figure it out in ten seconds.
>
>Note I said "a document". Mailing labels require some fancier
>layout controlling. Fine, call it a half hour? You think they
>could learn Linux system administration in a half hour? Or a
>half a week, even?
No, and that's the point. It's not easy or simple to learn to do
something hard. Clever programmers work all the time to try and
give hard tasks the illusion of ease, but it's just an illusion.
It isn't and never has been the case that a bunch of bad
programmers futz up what should have been easy to begin with.
>> Or ask them to use a typewriter to fill out their tax forms.
>>
>> Operating a typewriter (especially an old clunky one without the
>> modern convenience of automatic erase and electronic
>> key-triggers) is extremely difficult and takes years to master.
>
>We're not talking mastery, here, we're talking _usability_. It
>doesn't take years, or even hours, to _use_ a typewriter, it
>takes minutes.
As long as you've got a knowedgable friend nearby to insert the
paper straight for you.
The kind of skill at operating a typewriter you are talking about
is useless. Creating an error-free and well-formatted document
using a type-writer takes years to master.
>> Probably one of the main reasons computers invaded the
>> business world was their advantage over typewriters. If
>> typewriters were so easy, nobody would need a word processor.
>
>Typewriters don't store files. They can't be used to search for
>things. They don't have spell-checkers, etc, built in. Computers
>are much more useful, yes - and none of this, yet, shows any
>requirement that the user learn a damned thing about managing
>the machine.
A person who refuses to learn how to manage their computer will
not be able to produce anything other than the computer
equivalent of TV Dinners.
>I will delete some of the remainder, since it has absolutely
>nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It looked to me like you were making examples of items that you
thought were easy to learn and using them as prototypes for how
easy a computer ought to be to learn. None of your example made
any sense at all, since they were not easy to use. So why must a
computer, a device with infinite complexity compared to say, a
hammer, be easier to learn to use than a hammer?
>> Some advancements and conveniences are arrived at through, not
>> just purchasing technology, but learning to operate it. I've
>> heard there are many people that, though they own an oven,
>> cannot cook anything but TV dinners. How much more useful is
>> an oven to a chef?
>
>And how much more useful still, a combination oven and fridge,
>with built in computer control, which could simply be told "I
>need veal cordon bleu, for six, with tarragon peas, roast new
>potatoes, and a cherry pie for dessert, dinner to be ready at
>7PM, dessert to be ready at 8PM" and let the machines figure it
>out - right down to the point of noting "Whoops, your cheese has
>spoiled and you're out of peas; shall I place an order for these
>items for you?"
Maybe we should come back from la-la-land first before continuing
the discussion.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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: 23 Apr 2001 17:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2001 15:59:29 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:03:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:49:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> >taking random, unrelated snippets out of context is not victory.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is fun. Fun is a small victory.
>>>>
>>>>So, Roberto, have you stopped raping your daughter?
>>>
>>>His daughter was raped be a raping intruder in his home, but of
>>>course since his daughter's life was not in danger and he believes
>>>all killing is wrong (unless YOUR life is threatened), he gave the
>>>raper some cookies and milk when he was done and sent him on his way.
>>
>>Well, shooting at someone that's raping a woman is somewhat dangerous
>>for the woman, is it not? I would rather hit him in the kidneys with
>>a blunt object.
>>
>>Killing a rapist in the act of commiting a rape is not self defense.
>>It can be a justified murder, though. But self defense? Nah.
>>
>
>Ah, so we have just added another reason where killing is justified
>in Roberto's book.
Sure. I'm sure there's plenty more I haven't thinked yet.
>Justified killing:
>
> 1. self defense
Yes.
> 2. killing a rapist in the act of raping
No. Not in all cases. Only if he can not be stopped by other means,
if killing him doesn't endanger anyone, and so on. I really prefer,
if at all possible, that the rapist not be killed.
> 3. .... will there be more?...
Sure. I don't vlaim to have a complete list of the occasions when
I would kill someone. I do know that I would not kill someone just
because he's stealing my TV, though.
> 5. Killing as an act of war?>
In some acts of war, I have already said killing can be justified.
Of course there's a wide gulf between justified and ok, but
maybe god has not told tou that yet.
--
Roberto Alsina (who considers killing is bad, yet is willing to do
what's bad if the alternative is worse. And that,
friends, is all the difference)
------------------------------
From: "Hullo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:53:51 +0100
Reply-To: "Hullo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wonderful product from Microsoft. Go get it and get used to the future
dudes.
Work on politeness as your manners reflect badly on your linux cause..maybe
take some exercise and eat more fruit to relieve your evident stress and
aggression. Learn to relax.
Assume nothing.
LT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 23 Apr 2001 14:03:23 -0400
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isolated, no. Rare, as in a bank making a press announcement or doing an
> interview about an IT change? The only reason we know it, is because someone
> signed a deal that by doing so, reduced the cost.
Agreed. Yet in other postings you implied that you expect to see an
article a year or two from now documenting the failure. What makes you
think they would publish something like that?
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Stock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:10:12 -0400
Roberta,
> You cannot possibly know what the women who sleep with you want.
You are basing your supposition on your perception (since they get moist, they want to
-
or since they come back for seconds ...).
Did bill clinton want lead our armed forces? no, he wanted to be president, mostly for
his ego, but also for Hillary's agenda, and his status during/after.
Does he believe in fair treatment of women? Ask Monica or the others.
Is he at fault for using Monica? NO WAY, she did what she wanted to do.
How can a man who has no choice in abortion, be held liable for the child?
I do know that most women are not evil incarnate, just as most Union workers work every
bit as hard as their white collars superiors. But, for those of that have sucker
written
on our forehead, the good, fair, hard working, dignified women have no eyes.
Same as in the real world - a lioness feeds her cubs on the meat of the weak/sick
gazelle
and an weak buck does not get to mate. In truth it is fair- but it feels pretty damn
awful to be the sick/weak gazelle.
Natural Law is more fair than anything we will invent in Congress or anywhere else.
But Natural requires personal responsibility and we as a society detest that notion.
Those of us that eat meat would stop if we had to raise and slaughter our own meat -
(I
do, I mean women and therefore we would).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
