Linux-Advocacy Digest #999, Volume #33 Fri, 27 Apr 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: I Love the BSA (GreyCloud)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Zippy)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (GreyCloud)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("jet")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("billh")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("billh")
Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed. (Chad Everett)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Paul Repacholi)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chad Everett)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I Love the BSA
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:35:15 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > I think you need to clarify 'handouts' vs. the truly needy.
> > I have several friends that have children in their 40's that are
> > disabled due to schizophrenia. One was attending college and was a
> > straight A student. Half way thru his 4 year degree he suffered from
> > schizophrenia... he started to hear voices that he had absolutely no
> > control over. Ruined his start... never had a chance to save or even
> > contribute to an insurance policy. Last I heard, he was living in a
> > cardboard box behind a major brand store... they complained to the
> > police and had him put in jail.
> > He's now in prison for an illness that he could not control.
> >
> Don't you have a health system over there? in New Zealand he would be
> admited to a Mental Hospital, then after recieving the appropriate
> medication, learnt when/how to take their medication and the person feels
> confident, they are then re-introduced into the commmunity, if they are
> capable of working, a part-time job will be setup, and the short fall, aka
> the difference between the money earn't, and the cost of living, is then
> made up by social welfare.
>
Yes, but it sucks bad. The mental health care system is managed
differently in each state. There was a TV article about this... most
mentally ill have to commit a crime before getting any Mental Care and
the scenarios they had shown weren't pretty.
> Matthew Gardiner
> --
> Disclaimer:
>
> 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
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zippy)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:42:23 GMT
huh?
>There is not such thing as a Linux box.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:58:25 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:34:22
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:09:52
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:40:29
> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:00:58
> >> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >> >Any computer that has a multi-tasking O/S can run over 255 programs...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In theory or in reliable practice? Any OS but Windows, maybe. Monopoly
> >> >> >> crapware, I'm not so sure about.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In reliable practice... Back around 1965 a navy facility had a large
> >> >> >computer system. [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> 'In this here example one did,' is hardly what I call "in reliable
> >> >> practice", regardless of how unlikely the one that did seems to be. I
> >> >> mean can you guarantee that any and every computer (functioning
> >> >> hardware) running Windows will reliably run over 255 programs ever time
> >> >> you attempt it without fail? Then you're talking "in theory".
> [...]
> >> >How would you know... you weren't there.
> >>
> >> Its called "reasoning". It doesn't matter if I was there, it is still
> >> merely an illustration of your point, not prove of it. I doubt that
> >> most Windows PCs could run 255 programs without fail at all, let alone
> >> every time or all the time. Split it up how you want, quibble about
> >> threads and processes, but it comes down to the Real World, not the
> >> theoretical world of computer programming. Windows actually does suck
> >> that much.
> >>
> >> --
> >> T. Max Devlin
> >> *** The best way to convince another is
> >> to state your case moderately and
> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
> >
> >I know what you mean... but back then it was done in a more primitive
> >but easy to understand format. Each user back then was lucky to get a
> >4k chunk of memory.
>
> With a Unix OS, I would imagine you could easily load and run 255
> programs in a 4k chunk of memory. Slow and painful, and frequent use of
> swap, but nobody who tried this and had a Unix system fall over would
> hesitate to declare the Unix being used was sub-standard.
>
> [...]
> >That old navy machine did batch mode processing. Actually, everyone
> >submitted computing jobs in this manner and came back sometime the next
> >day for the results. But it did indeed run these programs without any
> >hitches.
>
> But not all at the same time, surely.
>
:-)) They sure did. These were Civil Servants, need I say more!? :-))
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
V
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:10:10 -0700
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:00:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >jet wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > chrisv wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >chrisv wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and you're no
Einstein.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Hope that helps.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Care to discuss the quantum dynamic behavior of semiconductor
devices?
> >> > >
> >> > > LOL! You like that phrase. Are those big words supposed to
impress?
> >> >
> >> > No. It's a serious challenge. I'm a little rusty on the subject
> >> > material...but I do have...much more familiarity with it than I
> >> > ever wanted to have (although now that I do have it, I hate losing
> >> > it...thus...it is a genuine invitation).
> >> >
> >> > > No, college physics was a long time ago, and I've lost the details
of
> >> > > this, although I never was an expert on it. (Although, unlike you,
I
> >> > > actually graduated with a BS in engineering.) I bet you think a of
> >> >
> >> > The only thing between me and a degree are a few credit hours
> >> > of non-technical electives.
> >>
> >> IOW, you flunked out.
> >
> >No. Lack of $$$$$, and a bad job market at that time.
>
> So what? As you always say, the poor are poor because they are
> stupid and incompetent. You were poor, because you were stupid
> and incompetent, and you couldn't keep yourself in school. Thus
> you flunked.
>
> Don't make excuses, since you apply these standards to others.
>
Fucking hard core.
J
> >Now that I have several years of work experience, I have enough work
> >experience to successfully compete in the cut-throat job market in
> >the vacinity of Purdue.
>
> You are an alleged unix sys/netadmin who doesn't knew how ping
> works. If I were hiring for junior positions and the prospect
> said something half as dumb, he wouldn't get a job.
>
> >...and the only reason it matters to me is because I want to take
> >some graduate level courses.
>
> Well, you are a moron, you said so yourself, so what makes you
> think you will understand any of it?
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:00:25 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Your problem, Bill, is that you are utterly uncreative when it comes
> > > to matters where maximum creativity counts.
> >
> > Is that what you call your lies and your BS excuses and cover you use
when
> > you are proven wrong? I've never heard of that definition of
"creativity"
> > before.
>
> Note how Bill clipped the saga of the creative adaptation of approximately
> 60 Sherman tanks into earth-moving devices during the hedge-row phase
> of the Normandy invasion
And just what do Sherman tanks at the Normandy beach head have to do with
the fact that the C130 is not a strategic airlift asset? Nothing. It's
simply another KuKuNut waffle. Cite uses of the C130 as strategic airlift.
> I specifically recall seeing a sign hanging on wall of my battalion's
> Operations office when I was in Southwest Asia. It was a quotation
> by a German General.
>
> "The reason why fighting the Americans is so difficult is because
> they refuse to follow their own doctrine"
LOL!!! You don't even know doctrine. Again, cite uses of the C130 as
strategic airlift assets, wannabe.
> Bill, you would be a very dangerous (to your own men) leader,
> because you are so rigidly "by the book". Thus, any opponent
> who is well-versed in American doctrine will know EXACTLY how
> to play you, because refuse allow any other ways to improvise,
> overcome, and adapt.
LOL!!! You are an idiot. You have no idea if I'm "rigidly by the book"
because you have no idea of what the "book" is. KuKuNut, what is the Army's
primary doctrinal manual, wannabe?
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:06:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > When full of fuel, what is the max cargo capacity of the C130, idiot?
What
> > speed and what range will it be capable of with that cargo when at max
fuel,
> > KuKuNut? The C130 does not perform strategic airlift as it is not
designed
> > to. You can not name an instance where it has performed strategic
airlift.
>
> If need be, it could be pressed into service to partake in such a mission.
>
> Is it the OPTIMAL platform to do it? No
> but can it function in that capacity? Yes.
The fact remains. You were wrong when you posted that the C130 was a
strategic airlift asset. Name uses of the C130 as strategic airlift. You
can wiggle and waffle all you want. You can even post about the art of the
possible, but you can not defend your ignorance when stating the C130 is a
strategic airlift asset. You are a simple wannabe who spouts off at the
mouth about that which you have little or no knowledge then gets defensive
when your idiocy is pointed out for all the world to see. Pathetic,
KuKuNut. Just pathetic.
Now go load some of that "class 2 food" you posted about earlier on a C130
for a strategic airlift. LOL!!!You're a wannabe.
>
>
> > Continue your waffle, wannabe. We like to see you dance. You are
pathetic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Apr 2001 15:42:24 -0500
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:15:37 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> >
>> > MH wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I thought 'real men' had no reason to use windows anything? Isn't that
>> > > 90% of COLA?
>> > > Geez ..make up your minds people. You bash Aaron for weeks over his
>> > > client header ...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Well, there are actually people here who either ran wintendo before
>> > switching, or who have a network even at home. I for example have a
>> > network consisting of 2 linux-boxes, 1 OS/2-Warp-box, 1 computer with
>> > winNT4, 1 Laptop with Win98 and the 2 computers of the kids, also running
>> > windows. There is nothing wrong in running windows also, what is wrong is
>> > the way Aaron is lying to us, pretending he runs something else.
>> > I´m willing to believe that he has a linux-box also, but unless he
>> > *proves* his outlandish claims *and* cares to explain in what way his
>> > security is enhanced by his childish ploy (if it were true, which I don´t
>> > believe) Aaron is simply a lying piece of goat-shit to me.
>> >
>>
>> Ummm.. Aaron isn't lying about what he has done in his career. The
>> claims may seem outlandish, but take a closer look at what he has said.
>> Some tolerance on statements is needed, as if we all are perfect in our
>> statements. Haven't you seen his post "No headers"??? I don't know how
>> to do that and he does... and I'm a lot older than he is!
>> Gruff people aren't what you think they are. Gruff people are your best
>> friends and a good ally.
>
>
>telnet some.newserver 119
>
>If you want to send fake mail
>
>telnet any.server.running.smtp 25
>
But be careful and don't assume you're anonymous to the people who run/own
the server. They will know from their logs from what IP address you connected
from....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
From: Paul Repacholi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Apr 2001 04:47:54 +0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Molitor) writes:
> One of the larger troubles TCP/IP has is its routing, which
> isn't scalable in any reasonable sense. It can be made to work on
> large networks by the simple expedient of throwing vast quantities
> of memory and compute power at it. By failing to separate the 'who
> am I' address from the 'how do you get to me' address, IP managed to
> completely avoid scalability. IPv6 managed to cleverly Not Fix this.
> The Byzantine efforts required to make this routing
> architecture work in a large network would be quite hilarious if
> they didn't hurt so badly.
Any of the Byzantines have your particular hate? No, don't bother to
answer, there are enought flap on the net as it is ;)
Pity that TCP/IS never got going...
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
Spam-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:12:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JS PL
<hieverybody!>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 23:16:20 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Marx was a genius, intuiting truths about the human experience which
>> > were quite original.
>>
>> Marx was a moron. Complete, unadulterated moron.
>>
>> For example, Marx' theory holds that the only value that an item of
>> commerce has is the labor that went into it. Productivity--irrelevant.
>> Quality--irrelevant. Innovation--irrelevant. Value = some constant times
>> the number of hours of labor.
>>
>> Even the most flaming liberal ought to see the flaw in that theory. For
>> example, a worker operating high speed machinery (which costs millions
>> of dollars) could produce a chair in 10 minutes. It would take me 10
>> hours to produce the same size chair, although since I'm a lousy
>> woodworker, the chair would probably collapse the first time you sat on
>> it.
>>
>> According to Marx, my chair is worth 60 times as much as the
>> machine-produced chair.
>
>That's why Max is so similar to his hero Marx. He believes the value of
>software is the cost of the medium on which it is burned.
Depends on whom one speaks of. Most likely:
The cost to the consumer purchasing the software is whatever the market
will bear; if a manufacturer is silly enough to command $1,000.00 for
something which is worth $10.00 from the standpoint of the consumer,
the manufacturer will either be sitting on a lot of inventory (although
that depends on the shipment method; more below) or rampant discounting,
competition, or even piracy may ensue.
Contrariwise, demanding $10.00 for something worth $1,000.00 might
either poison the market (by driving away competition [S/W suppliers]),
drive the manufacturer out of business (costs too high), or compel a
competitor to offer a similar product with more features, but at a
higher offering price. Whether the customer is willing to pay that
price depends on a large number of factors, of course.
The cost to the replicator/distributor of the software is the cost of
the media plus whatever storage costs are required to drive the media;
the media in this case could be CD disks or floppies for "classical media"
(CDs are real cheap; floppies aren't much, either, in bulk, AFAIK),
or (bandwidth pipe costs * size of software / size of pipe) for
Internet downloads. One can also add in the factor
(disk cost * size of software * length of support
/ (size of disk * depreciation schedule))
which estimates, if I've done this correctly, how much it costs to
put the software master on a disk prior to replication/distribution.
If the replicator burns a CD-ROM first then puts it on a server
with lots of RAM (alleviating certain piracy concerns), that may
require a different cost adjustment, but with that system there's
little chance of unauthorized modifications (viruses, worms, cracks),
unless the kernel gets munged (in Linux, the kernel maintains the
pages read in during file I/O; they'll stick around until someone
else needs the memory more, such as a program being loaded).
Of course, once it leaves the server the customer assumes any
responsibility for unauthorized modifications :-), and there is a
method of hijacking IP transmissions if one isn't sufficiently careful.
Or one can simply jam the bandwidth using a DDoS attack.
There are also possible capital expenditures; the equipment has to be
bought, maintained, and operated, after all.
Dunno how labor factors into all this -- probably a more or less
fixed overhead, or perhaps an hourly salary not unlike union workers
at an automobile manufacturing facility.
The cost to the developer of course is the cost of the engineers'
hourly salary, plus capital acquisition costs and disk storage costs
similar to the above, and possibly things such as trips to symposia
and beta sites.
The cost to customer support is the cost for training CS personnel
(a one-time expenditure per upgrade), plus their wagerate
* average support call length * cost of software * a fudge factor,
which is typically 1% or so per month for bigger packages.
And all of this has little bearing on software quality, although
one can make a case for higher paid engineers producing better
software. But that's not a given by any means.
Note also that disk, bandwidth, and machine costs are also determined
by their respective markets; after all, the disk manufacturers,
machine manufacturers, and ISPs have to make their money, too.... :-)
(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant. Perhaps someone else out there
is and can correct any gross omissions or errors in the above? :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:14h:07m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always compile your own software.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:51:40 +0200
"Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
There is Mac, the platform, and the PC, the platform, there is not such
thing as Linux, the platform.
The closest thing is Carozu(sp?), but it's still not it.
> huh?
>
> >There is not such thing as a Linux box.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Apr 2001 15:48:50 -0500
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:07 GMT, Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, let's see.
>>>
>>> Gays use sex much the same way hets do; as a method of recreation,
>>> excercise, sharing, comforting, bonding, play, relaxation, stress relief,
>>> expression of love, to increase closeness and intimacy, and so on. So one
>>> would conclude that if homosexuality is detestable, so is all sex.
>>
No, just all homosexual sex.
>
>You've got a very strange view of the world. You hear descriptions of loving
>relationships and immediately think of John Wayne Gacy... I'm surprised you
>didn't jump for necrophilia. I'd be interested in your explanation of what one
>has to do with the other though. Why do you equate the two?
>
>You seem to use shock tactics to avoid answering reasonable questions as
>though you're afraid to actually think about what is being said. Hence the
>constant use of one liners. Christianity does seem to instill something of a
>disgust about sex in a lot of its devotees though.
>
>ian.
Every christian I've had sex with has been great and we both really,
really enjoy it. Of course, I'm only dealing with a sample of one: my
wife.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:16:32 +0200
"billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yblG6.225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > When full of fuel, what is the max cargo capacity of the C130, idiot?
> What
> > > speed and what range will it be capable of with that cargo when at max
> fuel,
> > > KuKuNut? The C130 does not perform strategic airlift as it is not
> designed
> > > to. You can not name an instance where it has performed strategic
> airlift.
> >
> > If need be, it could be pressed into service to partake in such a
mission.
> >
> > Is it the OPTIMAL platform to do it? No
> > but can it function in that capacity? Yes.
>
> The fact remains. You were wrong when you posted that the C130 was a
> strategic airlift asset. Name uses of the C130 as strategic airlift. You
> can wiggle and waffle all you want. You can even post about the art of
the
> possible, but you can not defend your ignorance when stating the C130 is a
> strategic airlift asset. You are a simple wannabe who spouts off at the
> mouth about that which you have little or no knowledge then gets defensive
> when your idiocy is pointed out for all the world to see. Pathetic,
> KuKuNut. Just pathetic.
>
> Now go load some of that "class 2 food" you posted about earlier on a C130
> for a strategic airlift. LOL!!!You're a wannabe.
I would like to warn you that Aaron is a well known troll, facts, logic, or
common sense doesn't seem to matter to him.
You are simply wasting your time talking to him.
I found that my NTS ratio improved significally after I killedfiled him.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:23:17 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Edward Rosten writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> 1) loads of homosexuals do reproduce. There is no correlation between
>> >> >> infertility and sexual orientation.
>> >>
Edward> True, but if you don't have sex with a woman, you probably won't
Edward> reproduce.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but being homosexual is about desires, not behavior.
>> >> Women homosexuals frequently get pregnant with artificial
>> >> insemination.
>>
Aaron> Only within the last few decades.
>>
>> It has been around a while.
Aaron> Millenia?
Irrelevant, as your following statement was false, and you also
ignored the naked mole rat.
You are not very bright.
Aaron> Prior to that, barring rape, women homosexual did not reproduce.
>> False, lots of women homosexuals had sex with men to reproduce.
Aaron> Thus, even for females, if homosexuality is genetic, then it's
Aaron> a genetic defect.
>> Nope.
Aaron> Denial ain't just a river in egypt.
Then why is that all you have in most of the threads you
get involved in?
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:25:38 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:13:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >chrisv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >chrisv wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and you're no Einstein.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hope that helps.
>> >> >
>> >> >Care to discuss the quantum dynamic behavior of semiconductor devices?
>> >>
>> >> LOL! You like that phrase. Are those big words supposed to impress?
>> >
>> >No. It's a serious challenge. I'm a little rusty on the subject
>> >material...but I do have...much more familiarity with it than I
>> >ever wanted to have (although now that I do have it, I hate losing
>> >it...thus...it is a genuine invitation).
>> >
>>
>> Your knowledge about the "quantum dynamic behavior fo semiconductor
>> devices" is supposed to refute the statement that "you're no Einstein"
>> how exactly?
Aaron> Consider the fact that upon graduation, an undergraduate Physics major
Aaron> is expected to understand everything that Einstein knew about physics,
Aaron> and more.
This shows how dumb you are. For example, the mathematics of
the core PDE of general relativity are beyond the scope of most
graduate schools in mathematics.
Aaron> Hope that helps.
No, as you do not know what you are talking about.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
