Linux-Advocacy Digest #953, Volume #33 Thu, 26 Apr 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Terry Porter)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Hullo voted most boring COLA Wintroll 2001 (Terry Porter)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:56:07 GMT
Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 19 Apr 2001 15:21:02
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 05 Apr 2001 23:13:48
[...]
>> Actually, republicans *are* the party of big business while
>> democrats are the party of the people.
>
>Guh.
>
>Who works at "big businesses"?
>
>Individuals.
No, really? I suppose it must be difficult to conceive of a person who
can understand the Republican position and still disagree with it.
Individuals work at small businesses, too. More of them do, in fact,
though you'll find fewer billionaires among them.
>> Of course, republicans like to pretend they are the party of the
>> individual, and democrats would like to pretend they aren't flaming
>> liberals. My point was that the straw men and class warfare of the
>> liberals is no less nor more subjective or objective than the straw
>> men and class warfare of the conservatives.
>
>And yet you run around making statements like
>
> "Actually, republicans *are* the party of big business while
> democrats are the party of the people."
>
>As if,
>
> 1) The two are diametrically opposing forces; mutually exclusive
>
> (They aren't)
They are, and they aren't. Choose the metaphor or analysis you wish to
concern yourself with, and I'll gladly provide you rhetoric explaining
why both are true, simultaneously.
> 2) Big business doesn't depend on individuals or vice-versa
>
> (They do)
They do and they don't, likewise.
>I find it strange that you are making a point about the subjectivity
>of such claims by making the same claims; it reeks of liberal
>snobbery. Democrats like to pretend they aren't flaming liberals
>because they know it doesn't work in The Real World; as nice as it
>would be if it did work (apologies to Gene Roddenberry's perfect
>future).
Republicans like to pretend they aren't greedy bastards because they
know it doesn't work in The Real World. I don't see why you would
apologize to Gene Roddenberry, as he was, I would guess, a flaming
liberal. And the impact of his philosophy can still be seen on The Real
World. You can recognize, perhaps that it is extremely likely that the
first ship to land on a planet orbiting some other star, should it ever
happen, will have some token representation of Star Trek, just as the
space shuttle was named after the star ship, not the aircraft carrier.
>It all comes back to Dave Berry's "Conservatives are the daddy-party
>and Liberals are the mommy-party". We have to have a happy (or at
>least pseudo-dysfunctional-happy) balance between the two; the law on
>one hand and mercy on the other; nuclear power and pollution and
>electricity on the one side and regulations on the other; a military
>defense on the one hand and good diplomacy on the other. This whole
>Microsoft trial falls under the "protect the free market" folder in my
>head, and not under the "tax the successful people to make the world
>more fair" folder.
I couldn't agree more. It is only the cognitive dislexia of the
conservative position which makes me seem to prefer the Democrats. I'd
prefer a party half-way between the current liberals and the putative
libertarians, if the libertarians could only see their way to
jettisoning their anti-government rhetoric.
>If either side becomes too powerful then the system breaks; I just
>wish the libral party had more intelligent debaters that used *facts*
>more often than *feelings*; but that may simply be a reflection of my
>being and I respect that others may not "feel" the same way about this
>issue.
I think it is more of a reflection on the real world, as I agree with
your thinking concerning the Democrat's "feelings". I consider it an
extension of what I call "Socrates' error", that idea of western
philosophy which creates metaphysics. The problem is that the liberal
ideal simply does not have any actual scientific foundation. The
problem of altruism is far more valid that anyone wants to pretend, and
unfortunately theories of altruism are the distinct foundation of both
positions. The conservative argument thus abandons the validity of
"feelings", while the liberal proposition embraces it viscerally.
This all comes down to the reason for Socrates' error. Until very
recently (thanks to advances in neurobiology) we have been unable to
determine if "feelings" are physical, or metaphysical. Even knowing
they are emergent properties of our brains merely begs the question,
unless we can describe the science mathematically.
>I also respect the need to have open discussion about these
>issues; the last thing we need is a closed mind on *any* issue or
>*any* president, no matter how badly he butchers the English
>language.
Bush is a dangerous moron; I am open to discussion of this fact.
>> The concept of class warfare comes from Marx, which is communism,
>> and both liberals and conservatives have a very strong affinity,
>> which both deny just as strongly and both are accused of by the
>> other just as routinely, with communism; the democrats in the
>> socio-economic method, and the republicans in the political method.
>
>Class warfware has been around a lot longer than Marx; much of the
>Bible is about class warfare (and race warfare, and genocide, and
>infancide, but I digress...)
Plenty of all the rest, but I am unaware of any class warfare at all in
the Bible. Not that I'm an authority, but having gone to 12 years of
Catholic school, I'd suspect its because its not there.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:56:10 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Apr 2001 23:24:37
>[...]Since we libertarians by definition don't believe in
>initiation of force and/or fraud, we have a greater challenge before
>us than do authoritarians and statists: we have to figure out how to
>address these problems, and thereby protect a certain set of rights,
>*without* violating anyone else's rights in the process. It is a
>harder job because we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Oh. My. God. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Sounds like you just don't find your idealistic stance very
debilitating, casting your aspersions as you are from an ivory tower,
safe from pragmatic concerns.
Your standards, you see, are completely meaningless in the real world,
where it is whether OTHERs "believe in" force or fraud (as if anyone
does) which is of political concern. Libertarians just ignore the
problems, same as the Marxists do.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:56:11 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 18 Apr 2001
>I top post so you see my response as soon as you open it.
I don't want to. I want to get an idea of whether I give a crap about
your response before I bother parsing the words.
>I am making
>life easier for the reader.
You are trying to justify your laziness by ignoring, even denying, the
difficulty you cause for the reader by failing to follow standard
posting conventions.
>Thats unless you like scrolling down 20
>lines of text before you get to the reply?
I prefer you learn to snip AND learn to not-top post, both at the same
time, if you think you can handle it. Don't pop a vein on my account,
though, if it' too much of a load on your cerebral organ.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 25 Apr 2001 00:25:52 GMT
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:17:26 +0100, Hullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try ringing the support people at Microsoft and asking. You never know you
> may learn something. Let us know what they say.
>
I rang Ms Support re an Access problem, the kid who answered my enquiry was
totally clueless. It has already been shown that 'Psychic Friends' do just
a good as job at solving your Windows problems as Ms Support.
Psychic Friends:-
'I feel that there is a reluctance in your Windows Pc to perform this task'
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:59:31 GMT
>>>>> BrendaLee writes:
BrendaLee> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> BrendaLee writes:
>>
BrendaLee> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
[snip]
>> >> >> I am sorry your experience of American women has
>> >> >> been so poor.
Aaron> Actually, my own PERSONAL experience has been ok. However, one does
Aaron> not need to personally experience divorce, etc. to know how badly the
Aaron> guys get shafted....all you need to do is pay attention to what is
Aaron> happening to all of the other men around you.
>> >> I do. I have personally seen no bad cases. All the divorces
>> >> I personally know about were settled on child support, not
>> >> alimony. And in the cases where the woman was the larger breadwinner
>> >> and joint or paternal custody, the woman paid the child support.
BrendaLee> Just because you have never seen one does not mean they don't
BrendaLee> exist. For instance, my stepfather got divorced from his first
>> True, I did not say they didn't. I said that in my experience
>> they were unseen, and therefore I expected they were rare.
BrendaLee> Yes you did, I saw that as I was continuing the thread, but wanted
BrendaLee> to place a concrete example of my saying that there were
BrendaLee> exceptions.
There certainly are.
BrendaLee> wife. I have no idea what she said to that judge but he was taken
BrendaLee> for the ride of his life. Literally. He was forced to pay her
BrendaLee> 'alimony' for the ''rest of her life''. It was garnisheed from his
BrendaLee> wages automatically every week. On top of child support. And twice
BrendaLee> that I know of he went to court and pleaded that he had another
BrendaLee> family and could they lower it and he was told by the judge to
BrendaLee> *get another job*.
BrendaLee> I am sure this in not the norm, but it can, and did happen. And I
BrendaLee> witnessed it with my own eyes. I do believe nowadays there is a
BrendaLee> two-year-get-back-on-your-feet helping out period or something
BrendaLee> similar in certain cases.... At least that is what I have heard.
>> That would be state law, and local to your area.
BrendaLee> Okay, I am not familiar enough with state laws to know for sure. I
BrendaLee> just knew that it was wrong to make him pay for that duration. And
BrendaLee> what makes it worse was that she was a very big woman and was
BrendaLee> physically abusive to him. I saw her take a phone one day, and as
BrendaLee> he was about halfway down the steps she flung the phone at him and
BrendaLee> it hit him in the middle of the back dropping him to his knees. He
BrendaLee> finally got up and continued walking out the door.
BrendaLee> He got it from all angles.
BrendaLee> BrendaLee
BrendaLee> In all honesty though this was a while back and I believe things
BrendaLee> have since changed for the better.
I hope in general, but expect there will always be some horrible cases.
In Mass, the JSC just ruled that a man has to continue paying child support
for kids he did not father. Their reasoning was, if I understand it correctly,
that he did not challenge paternity in time. He had been paying CS for some
years before becoming aware he was not the father.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Hullo voted most boring COLA Wintroll 2001
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 25 Apr 2001 00:31:07 GMT
Hullo is not only clueless and wearisome, Hullo is vexed
by its bot like devotion to Windows White Goods Software.
Bill needs your money Hullo .... get it.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:02:11 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:52:47 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>theRadical wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:42:11 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >theRadical wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:59:36 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:53:58 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Duh-Ridiculed one wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:03:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Gunner ©" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can split the
>fee when
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we can see
>lots of
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive already
>got a
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >buyer for the master tape.
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Gunner
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> why doesn't it surprise me that a sick gun nut fuck like gunner
>would
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> think such trash?
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >Because he's got a good sense of humor. :-)
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >Sue
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> Thanks Sue!
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> And of course..I have a good business sense as well. I could
>indeed
>> >> >> >> >> > >> sell a video of Aaron giving the Radical a serious attitude
>adjustment.
>> >> >> >> >> > >> ..Afterall.. wouldnt Libertarian/Conservitive, with more than 6
>weeks
>> >> >> >> >> > >> on the net.. love to see a troll who's limited vocabulary includes
>> >> >> >> >> > >> "sick gun nut fuck" , get his shit scattered? Then there are the
>> >> >> >> >> > >> T-shirt rights...and the bumper sticker, beer and popcorn
>> >> >> >> >> > >> residuals..hence the request to draw it out as long as possible.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> T-shirt example:
>> >> >> >> >> > >> Front Side..
>> >> >> >> >> > >> "This is a troll." (picture of a gnormlish nerd like Radical in
>front of
>> >> >> >> >> > >> a computer)
>> >> >> >> >> > >> Backside..
>> >> >> >> >> > >> " This is a troll after Aaron" (picture of a roadkill with a
>sandaled
>> >> >> >> >> > >> foot and clawed, broken fingered hand, sticking out of the
>puddle)
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> Picture the Budwieser frogs... "grease" "a" "troll"
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >Could you post a price list please. <G> Any discounts available?
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >Sue
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Ma'am..for you , Ill make sure you get a good selection of every thing
>> >> >> >> >> > for free.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Everything?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> But...sue's a married woman.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I am? You mean that paperwork I got from the court in 1987 was fake?
>> >> >> >> >Geeze, I hope this doesn't get out because I sure don't want The Asshole
>> >> >> >> >showing up at my door demanding his marital "rights". eeewwww. If I am
>> >> >> >> >still married, as you say, I must say that these last 14 years have been
>> >> >> >> >the best part of it. <G>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Sue (who is "taken" but not married)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> just more proof that "kulkis the shit head" has absolutely no idea of
>> >> >> >> what he speaks.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Humor isn't your strong suit, is it, Duh-Ridicule....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> there is nothing funny about a pathetic little lying asshole such as
>> >> >> yourself kulkis.
>> >> >
>> >> >Shut up, you little fascist bastard.
>> >>
>> >> showing your true third grade mentality now aren't you liar?
>> >
>> >AAAAAAAw, did I heart the fealing of the little Neo-Stalinist piece of shit.
>>
>> yes, and i am the one with poor communications skills, huh liar?
>
>I'm pretty sure everybody reading me understand exactly what I was trying
>to communicat.e
in spite of your poor communications skills.
>But...as I have noted elsewhere, Duh-Ridiculed...you seem
>to have alot of difficulty comprehending written English. Thus, I will
>spell it out more clearly for simpletons like yourself:
>
>
>1) I don't have the least bit of sympathy for you, and
>2) I think you're a little Neo Stalinist piece of shit
yes, i am not the one who lies. i am not the one who uses false logic
to arrive at ridiculous conclusions. i wouldn't want any sympathy
from you even if i deserved it (which i do not think). i am nothing
akin to a "neo stalinist." so who is really the pathetic piece of
shit liar, kulkis?
the kulkis strategy:
dodge, lie, ignore, dodge, lie, attack, lie, ignore, dodge.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:05:23 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:36:56 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:47:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:13:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:57:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> and lying is for dolts like yourself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Speak for yourself, dolt.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you saying you have not lied here, Aaron?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Didn't you, when I said marrying you could be dangerous for a woman's
>> >> >> health say that was not true, only to say, two posts later, that
>> >> >> you would kill such woman if she ever got alimony from you?
>> >> >
>> >> >Divorcing =/= marrying
>> >>
>> >> If she didn't marry, she can not divorce. Getting alimony from you
>> >> would be a direct consequence of her marriage.
>> >
>> >False premise.
>> >
>> >By that SUPPOSED logic, every marriage leads to alimony payments.
>>
>> Some marriages lead to alimony payments. I said marrying you *could*
>> be dangerous for her health. Not that it *was* dangerous for her health.
>
>that's not what you were trying to imply, weasel.
another perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>
>>
>> If you gonna blather about "SUPPOSED logic", it would do a world
>> of good if you actually read what you are replying to.
>>
>> Take a deep breath.
>
>OK
>
>> Ignore your stench.
>
>I'll pretend you don't exist. That should do it.
>
>
>> Now think.
>
>It is the mark of a poor leader that he demands others to do that which he
>himself is unwilling to do himself.
>
>
>By the way, I'm the one who's thinking.
you have yet to prove it.
[gun nut crap snipped]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:05:20 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> nunnayabidniz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >homosexuality is not genetic, it is a choice.
>> >>
>> >> Why did you choose to be heterosexual?
>> >
>> >because successful DNA are those that reproduce.
>>
>> That isn't an answer. Why did YOU CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
>>
>> >There are only two explanations for homosexuality
>>
>> That you are capable of accepting. Given your obvious bigotry and
>> scientific illiteracy, I'd hardly consider your opinion to be worth
>> anything.
Aaron> You're either born with it (genetic), or you choose it (for whatever
Aaron> reason).
Aaron> So, homosexuality is the result of either a genetic defect, or a choice.
Aaron> There are *NO* other options.
Either you are born left handed (genetic), or you choose to be left handed (for
whatever reason).
So, left-handedness is the result of either a genetic defect, or a choice.
There are *NO* other option.
(For the irony impaired, I am just pointing out _one_ of the several
Kulkis logic errors in his post.).
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:06:38 GMT
On 26 Apr 2001 16:41:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:36:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:47:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:13:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:57:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>> >> >> >> and lying is for dolts like yourself.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Speak for yourself, dolt.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Are you saying you have not lied here, Aaron?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Didn't you, when I said marrying you could be dangerous for a woman's
>>> >> >> health say that was not true, only to say, two posts later, that
>>> >> >> you would kill such woman if she ever got alimony from you?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Divorcing =/= marrying
>>> >>
>>> >> If she didn't marry, she can not divorce. Getting alimony from you
>>> >> would be a direct consequence of her marriage.
>>> >
>>> >False premise.
>>> >
>>> >By that SUPPOSED logic, every marriage leads to alimony payments.
>>>
>>> Some marriages lead to alimony payments. I said marrying you *could*
>>> be dangerous for her health. Not that it *was* dangerous for her health.
>>
>>that's not what you were trying to imply, weasel.
>
>Dear, only I know what I tried to imply. However, what I wrote
>implies what I said, easily.
>
>>that's why I beat you by getting you to admit that, yes, indeed,
>>the only logical stance is one that people have the FREEDOM to
>>have firearms (so that, among other things, they can protect themselves).
>
>Why are you so obsessed with guns? We were discussing freedom of movement,
>not freedom to possess guns.
as a gun nut, kulklis has to interject guns into every thread.
>
>So, let me get this straight, you were lying about women in
>Arabia being better off, in order to win another argument? How
>cheap.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 25 Apr 2001 00:40:35 GMT
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:00:47 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wintroll: Wonderful product from Microsoft. Go get it and get used to the future
Wintroll: dudes.
>
> Tell me why I should run Win2K on my computer. I have a P133 w/72M of ram
> btw and I'm not willing to upgrade any time soon.
>
> Now how great would it work on that?
>
> -Ed
Geesus Ed, you Luddite....how on earth do you expect to keep the wheels of
commerce turning with your clear lack of social responsibility!!
After all the trouble Microsoft have gone to for their shareholders ...
*Built in obsolesence
*Controlled Feature Release (tm)
*Cross Intel Pollinisation
*Advanced Hardware Takeup (tm)
*Standards Improvement (tm)
*Latest Technology Recycling (tm)
You should be ashamed ..... ;-)
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
