Linux-Advocacy Digest #101, Volume #34 Tue, 1 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:33:59 -0500;
> >
> >"Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> > I know enough about programming to know that you can't write a
program
> >> > that uses a library that doesn't yet exist and expect it to work just
> >> > because it matched a draft of the API documentation.
> >>
> >> Which means you don't know nuthin', bub. You've been corrected on this
> >> fact a number of times.
> >>
> >I have worked on many significant projects when the libraries and the
> >mainline are written simultaneously.
>
> Are you even BOTHERING to read what I wrote, or is it your only goal to
> claim that I'm wrong, and so it doesn't matter how clueless you have to
> be to "prove" it?
>
> >Of course, perhaps the hardest part
> >of the development process: the specification of APIs and other
interface
> >definitions has mostly already been done.
>
> Hmmmmm.....
>
> >Please, tmax, find something that you really do know how to do.
>
> I know how to debate, and so far, all we have is a bunch of people
> refusing to understand my point.
>
> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
library's API are known, nothing more is required.
There is a large part of design in this, but this has nothing to do with
implementation, which was your original point.
You claimed that you need to know how an API is implement to work with it
correctly.
> Now, if you can UNDERSTAND my point, then you are going to have to treat
> it as reasonable, and at that point you can begin to try to discuss
> whether it is correct. But if you cannot understand why it is
> reasonable, then you DO NOT understand it. I will be happy to continue
> (still) explaining it, as I have for many months now, if you wish.
> Claiming I am "clueless" or "just making it up" (while both possibly
> true) is FAILING to have any point at all, since neither of these things
> prevents the point from being reasonable, and merely illustrates the
> real problem is that you don't understand it.
I, among others, write software, you don't.
Trying to argue about something you have so little understanding about with
people who do it for a living is quite strange, don't you think?
When I've an API, I can write a code that will use this API, I don't need
anything more than the API.
API is defined as Application Program Interface.
Keyword here is Interface, once you have that, you no longer need to know
anything else.
> Knowing how long and hard you have argued these issues, Jason, I don't
> expect you're suddenly going to realize your mistake and agree with me.
> But I must honestly say that you have NOT provided a comprehensible
> (i.e. understandable and reasonable) refutation to the argument. I say
> this because I DO understand the arguments you've provided so far, and
> consider them reasoned (if not entirely reasonable) and also incorrect,
> because they are contrary in some respect to the real world.
No, you don't, you need to have some basic understanding in coding desgin,
which you lack.
You confuse some basic stuff, compiling, testing code, abstraction,
compiling the full application, etc.
Pick up a book about programming, you'll be a much wiser person afterward,
at least in this subject.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
us.military.army,alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,soc.ment,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 16:28:17 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
> >> >rifleman1 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So your clearly erroneous claim that the C-130 is a strategic platform
> >> >> > > is now joined by your contention that tanks are construction vehicles?
> >> >
> >> >The point, Bill Hudson, is that tanks WERE USED AS "earth movers" because
> >> >that's what the situation called for...REGARDLESS of what the guys at
> >> >TACOM headquarters in Warren Michigan, or the various tank plants around
> >> >Detroit thought.
> >>
> >> My point (not Bill Hudson's) was, Aaron, that REGARDLESS of this
> >> occurrence, a tank is not a construction vehicle, and a C-130 is not a
> >> strategic platform, it is a tactical platform.
> >
> >Cargo planes with MUCH shorter range, and MUCH smaller cargo volume
> >and lift capacity were used for STRATEGIC lift in the China-Burma-India
> >theater of operations in World War 2.
>
> So a tank is a construction vehicle, because tanks have been used as
> construction vehicles, is that what you're saying?
It was an EXAMPLE of a piece of equipment not only succesfully use in
an unorthodox way....in fact in which the victory DEPENDED on the use
of the tank in an unorthodox way.
Is the typical a tank DESIGNED to be an earth mover?
No
Since then, do we now have tanks which *ARE* designed to be earth movers?
Yes
M-1 Grizzly breaching vehicle.
If it's a stupid idea, and it works, then it's not a stupid idea.
>
> You may have noticed that neither Bill or I are arguing against your
> contention that this tactical asset could be (or has been) used
> strategically. This does not make it a strategic platform.
>
> Your assumption that 'breaking the rules' is simple delusion in
> hindsight. Suppose the tanks had gotten mired and ruined? Suppose the
> "quick thinking" of the moron in the field causes thousands of deaths,
Suppose a frog had wings...
since the frogs, in fact, do not have wings, then any discussion
about frogs with wings has as much relationship to reality as
talking about tanks that "got mired" which didn't get mired.
Clue for the clueless: the hedgerow breaching-equipment was TESTED
before they started putting it on additional tanks.
All told, only about 50 tanks at Normany were ever outfitted with
the ad-hoc equipment.
> because they figured its "only" the fact that it is described as a
> strategic platform that makes something a strategic platform? Do you
> realize how thoroughly you are going to get your little-general ass
> kicked if you try to use tactical platforms strategically, against an
> opponent who is not so inexperienced, clueless, and full of his own
> genius?
Just like General Stillwell when he successfully used cargo planes with
a MUCH smaller capacity and MUCH shorter range for strategic supply in
the China-Burma-India theater of operations....
>
> [...]
> >And most weapons experts will tell you that most weapons are capable
> >of fulfilling roles which the pentagon paper-pushers have NOT designated
> >to them.
>
> So?
>
> >Look at any war, and, if the people at Training and Doctrine had their
> >way, a good many SUCCESSFUL commanders would be sent away for employing
> >equipment in ways not endorsed by TRADOC.
>
> That's bullshit. They would order those commanders to encode their
> tactics and their doctrine. Doh!
The most difficult thing about fighting the Americans is that their
officers refuse to follow their own doctrine"
Blind obediance to officially documented doctrine allows your
opponents to predict your every move.
Hope that helps.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 16:29:06 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >chrisv wrote:
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >billh wrote:
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> >>
> >> >> > That which supports strategic goals as opposed to tactical goals.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL!!! You've out done yourself, wannabe.
> >> >
> >> >Then, Bill, I'm sure you can provide us with a better concise
> >> >definition of "strategic," right, asshole.
> >>
> >> Once again Kookis resorts to his "I'll make the other guy explain it,
> >> then say 'yep that's right' when he's done" tactic, when his BLUFF has
> >> been CALLED!
> >
> >He's claimin my definition is wrong, so the burden of providing a
> >better defininition is upon him.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. That's the same tactic you used last time, when your
> bluff was called. And the time before that, and the time before that,
> and the time before that.
>
> You know, Aaron, if you killed the attitude, killed the sig, and tried
> to avoid anti-trolling, you might well be an intelligent and reasonable
> person, I think, even if some of your ideas are kind of goofy (more so
> even than their conservative roots). As it stands, you're just a troll
> who happens to hate Microsoft, no different in any other respect from
> the sock puppets or windroids.
>
Nothing gets past you.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 16:29:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001 11:56:21 GMT;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin"
> >> >
> >> >> >You've obviously never served, trained, or fought in any Army
> >> >>
> >> >> Look; if its violence, it isn't being a professional soldier, its being
> >> >> a thug. I have served, trained, and stood guard with the military
> >> >> (Navy), and I do know what I'm talking about.
> >> >
> >> >Get on a night live fire range with an infantry company supported by
> >> >anti-tank, mortar, and arty. It is violence of the first order. To say it
> >> >is not, is simply naive and ignorant.
> >>
> >> Apparently, your intent is to so torture the term 'violence' as to make
> >> it useless. Congratulations.
> >
> >No...it's truly violent.
> >
> >About 6 years ago, some Michigan Army National Guard soldiers got lost
> >and wandered into the impact zone of a rifle range just before a night fire.
> >
> >Despite calls from the range's control tower telling anyone downrange to
> >identify themselves before the range went "hot", they never did (to this
> >day, nobody knows why).
> >
> >All three suffered very violent deaths.
>
> You're not paying any attention to what I say, are you?
On the contrary, I refuted your point directly.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 20:45:03 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >> >>
Aaron> billh wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Never did, shit-head.
>> >> >> >> > Food is Class I.
>> >> >> >> Another lie from the "wannabe".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Your post (news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...) from 27 Apr 2001 in the
>> >> >> >> thread, "Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)" proves you a liar. I
repost
>> >> >> >> it below:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
____________________________________________________________________________
>> >> >> >> __
>> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________
>> >> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > KuKuNut thought Class 2 was shelter.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Bill Hudson is LYING again.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > No, Class II is FOOD, you moron.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> > Aaron R. Kulkis
>> >> >> >> > Unix Systems Engineer
>> >> >> >> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
>> >> >> >> > ICQ # 3056642
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > L: This seems (Snip much worthless crap).
>> >> >> >>
_________________________________________________________________________
>> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are both the moron and the liar. Of course, the soldiers and vets
in
>> >> >> >> uma have had you pegged as such for a long time now. You're a wannabe,
>> >> >> >> Kulkis.
>> >> >>
Aaron> Bill, did you forge that yourself, or did your mommy help you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are proven a liar once again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your original post is still at Google.
>> >> >>
http> groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are not only a serial liar, you are a very stupid and
>> >> >> inept liar.
>> >>
Aaron> I did not write that.
>> >>
>> >> I do not believe you.
>> >>
Aaron> Hope that helps.
>> >>
>> >> No, you are a known liar. Seeing more lies does not help
>> >> at all.
>>
Aaron> I didn't write that. Hope that helps.
>>
>> I just checked us.military.army and did not find your
>> post, despite the fact that my server had many posts
>> prior to 4/27 still in the group. I did find a post
>> by billh, which quoted "your" post, with the reference
>> to the same message id I searched for in google. If it
>> was a forgery it was a pretty good one, but without being
>> able to see the headers in google (anyone know how, you
>> could see them on dejanews?) I do not know for sure.
>>
>> Meantime I retract the claim that you are lying this
>> time. It does seem odd that that particular post is
>> missing from my server.
Aaron> Thank you for your honesty in this matter.
No need to thank me, it is my honor at stake. If I find
I made or may have made an error, I am bound to point it
out.
Now does anyone know how to get message headers on the
google archive? Am I just missing a link, or is that
not yet possible?
--
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
******************************
