Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: the Boom, Boom department ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Now push hard (pip)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 7 May 2001 13:45:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49
>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
>>
>>Thatīs like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
>>of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
>
>I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby" would
>be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
>ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
Well, it may seem to you, but it does not seem to me, and it probably
does not seem to copyright law. For example, descriptions of "The Great
Gatsby" (let's call it TGG) are not covered by TGG's copyright.
That's why literary criticism can exist.
>>>>An API can not be "wrong" because there is no platonic object
>>>>to compare it to, if you catch my drift.
>>>
>>>I am overjoyed to see you are approaching the point where you can
>>>understand me. Thank you for that effort.
>>>
>>>My entire point, Roberto, is that there ARE NO platonic objects. You
>>>see? An API cannot be 'wrong' because it is an abstraction which is
>>>inviolate in your mind. You are making it a platonic object, by the
>>>way, and in being unable to compare it to itself without finding
>>>identity and unity, you consider 'the API' cannot be wrong. Does that
>>>make sense?
>>
>>Nothing can be wrong if you can only compare it to itself.
>
>Yes, that was my point. Therefore, your concept of "the API" is flawed
>and useless, because it can only be compared to itself. It is either
>the program or the library; there is no API.
Because something can not be wrong it is flawed and useless? I know
it would make for bad Usenet debate, but things that are correct
and can not be wrong are quite useful.
>"There is no spoon." The API can morph its form as easily as the spoon
>in the movie. Its existence is just as much fiction, then.
A book can morph as easily as the API. Yet the book exists.
>>>>An API can not be "wrong" like a rock can not be "wrong".
>>>
>>>If someone throws a chunk of concrete into a pile under study by
>>>geologists, they will most surely say that rock is "wrong", don't you
>>>think? Rocks are physical things; APIs are just platonic objects.
>>
>>No, I donīt think they would say the rock is "wrong".
>>APIs exist materially. They can not be platonic objects.
>
>No, APIs don't exist materially, that is my point.
Well, blatant assertion is harly a point. APIs exist. I have several
copies of them in my desk.
> They are "a contract
>for services", a metaphoric (metaphysic, i.e. platonic) objects only.
>What exist materially (we will say) are libraries and programs, and the
>necessity to determine if one is derivative of the intellectual property
>of the other.
Declaring the immateriality of an object is a risky trick.
>>>>An API can be inadequate, though, and it can not fulfill its purpose.
>>>>
>>>>An implementation of the API can be wrong, because its "platonic object"
>>>>is the API.
>>>
>>>There are no platonic objects in this universe, Roberto, and this is the
>>>only universe that exists.
>>
>>That is why I used quotes. The API is an object that describes what
>>the implementation should be. The use of "platonic object" was an
>>analogy.
>
>No, you got it backwards. The API is not an object; objects don't
>"describe things" unless they are platonic objects, i.e., abstractions.
Quoting "Riding the Iron Rooster": "Peking is a sooty city, littered
with high cranes shaped like inverted Ls, looking down.". "Riding
the Iron Rooster" is an object. That is a description.
> [...]
>>An implementation of an API is something that performs the functions
>>and shows the behaviour required by the API.
>
>Documentation of an API fulfills this definition, as far as I am
>concerned, since the behavior of a correct implementation cannot be
>different from a correct logical analysis of how it should behave.
That makes no sense. A logical analysis doesn't behave in any particular
way. How do you call a function of a logical analysis?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:49:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :The vast majority of human beings are bisexual, with most of them
>> :having a preference for one sex or the other.
>
>If your claim were true, then most bars, at the end of the night,
>would be the majority of men who failed to snag a women to hook
>up with each other and go home.
No, that's not true at all.
>Since this doesn't happen, it indicates that the men are NOT
>"bisexual, with a preference for [females]" but, in fact, find
>the thought of engaging in sex with another man to be repulsive.
Your logic is false, and your evidence supporting your last sentance
is where?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:50:41 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> iMac's are all good, esp. with MacOS X.
I just can't get past the cutsie pastel coloring. They look like something
you'd find in a teenage girl's room, right next to the N'Sync poster and the
stuufed animals.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 7 May 2001 13:51:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:17:52
>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:15:16
>>>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:08:24
>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>>>>>>>practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>>>>>>>exist in any way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
>>>>>
>>>>>What commercial grade product have you produced using this insane
>>>>>method, then?
>>>>
>>>>When did commercial grade enter the picture?
>>>
>>>Again, we are talking software that people would be willing to pay for,
>>>or the entire issue of copyright goes "poof".
>>
>>Bollocks. Good software can be a derivative work of bad software,
>>so copyright of bad software is quite important.
>
>I had thought that, according to you, no software can be "derivative" of
>any other software, but can only contain copies of other software.
Guess what? If I take GAWK and change 10% of it, the new thing is
derivative from GAWK. If you really thought I said that, you are not
reading carefully.
> I
>can't see what that has to do with "good" or "bad", and those things
>don't have anything to do with software's commercial value. Or so it
>would seem from the commercial software world which you are defending.
Ok, if you object to the use of "good" and "bad":
"commercial-grade software can be derived from non-commercial-grade
software, so copyright of non-commercial-grade software is quite
important"
>>>>But if you really need that, I produced a image archiving system for a
>>>>newspaper, without access to the database used by the newspaper.
>>>>I did have another database that implemented the same API, though.
>>>
>>>And you're still going to refuse to see why that small distinction is a
>>>big one, are you?
>>
>>What small distinction?
>
>The distinction between your awareness of the API, and the library's
>existence.
I am also aware of the distinction between an ox and a lightbulb, but
I don't see where I used either in the previous post.
>>> [...remainder of Roberto missing the point again deleted as
>>>unproductive...]
>>
>>Fine by me. Now, if you also applied that to your product!
>
>It's been very productive for me, thanks. You've helped me clarify a
>rather large number of arguments concerning software copyright.
Well, you still seem pretty confused.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 7 May 2001 13:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:47 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:45:43
>>On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:36:46
>>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>This kind of snippet can and is used in programs that real people use.
>>>
>>>And such a program would be derivative of the snippet, in a copyright
>>>sense. NOT because the program "contains a copy of" the snippet; a
>>>literal copy is not necessary to violate copyright. Because the program
>>>is, in the copyright sense, derivative.
>>
>>Nonsense. Copyright protects an expression of the idea, not the idea.
>
>Yes, that is the kind of metaphorical description that makes copyright
>law "nonsense" in the hands of the naive. Copyright protects the bottom
>line, whether authors get paid, not any 'expression of ideas'.
I did not say copyright protects 'expression of ideas'. What copyright
protects are expressions of ideas. It *is* different.
>>If the expression is not copied, the work is not derivative.
>
>This is untrue, demonstrably. If the work is derivative of the
>expression, it is derivative.
And you say I use unfalsifiable statements.
> It is not derivative if it is derivative
>of the idea, is what I think you are trying to say.
That makes no sense. There is no such thing as "derivative of the idea".
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:01:10 -0400
chrisv wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> :The vast majority of human beings are bisexual, with most of them
> >> :having a preference for one sex or the other.
> >
> >If your claim were true, then most bars, at the end of the night,
> >would be the majority of men who failed to snag a women to hook
> >up with each other and go home.
>
> No, that's not true at all.
>
Really? If the majority of men are bisexual, then why aren't they
hooking up with other guys after failing with the women?
> >Since this doesn't happen, it indicates that the men are NOT
> >"bisexual, with a preference for [females]" but, in fact, find
> >the thought of engaging in sex with another man to be repulsive.
>
> Your logic is false, and your evidence supporting your last sentance
> is where?
I have demonstrated that not only is there NO evidence to support
your position, but that the available evidence DIRECTLY REFUTES
your position.
IF most men were bisexual, then you would see all kinds of guys
hooking up for sex after striking out with the chicks.
Since such a thing doesn't happen, then your assumption is false.
Hope that helps.
--
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: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:02:21 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Great "Gay" Racket
>April 19, 2001
>
>by Joe Sobran
>
> Funny how the people who style themselves
>victims always want to bully everyone else.
Always? Really?
>"Diversity" now means conformity. It means making
>sensible people afraid to contradict nonsense so
>obvious as to insult their intelligence.
This is the only like in here I agree with. This PC sh*t has got to
go. Making people afraid to speak their minds only makes things
worse.
> Normal people find homosexuality, especially
>male homosexuality, repellent.
Typical male sports-fan beer-drinking double standard. Two women
homosexuals? Great! Two males? Yucky gross! I don't see the
difference, personally.
> We're supposed to
>apologize for that? Our slang words for the anus,
>and their use as insults, express our disgust with
>the whole idea of anal sex. Apart from the personal
>defilement it involves, it's grossly unsanitary.
Homosexual behavior != anal sex.
Unrelated crap about pedophiles snipped.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now push hard
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:06:35 +0100
Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> >
> > ...And the use of Java is to be commended.
>
> I can understand that for portability and stability issues, but I must admit
> that I find the (few) Java GUI apps I have tried to be a bit "slow" and not
> quite as snappy as their C/C++ counterparts. (All that where on a Windows
> platform however, if that's got any bearing on the matter). Is that just my
> imagination, or is that a shared experience?
Trying to avoid provoking a religious language war...
Yes - I am sure that you have found that Java GUI apps are slower than
native C/C++ apps. Java can however be compiled to improve this, and the
latest just in time compilers also improve this. I use Java (JBuilder)
for developing Java and I think that it is quite snappy. Not as good as
it could be but "satisfactory". It is also nice to have the same
development environment under Linux and win32! Also there was a Java
office suite (I can't remember the URL) and I'd urge you to give that a
try (has a demo I think) and you'll be impressed how things have moved
on. Java had (quite rightly) a bad rap for performance in years past,
but now, just like in the development curve of C and then C++ compilers
- people are understanding how to get the best from the system. Also as
far as applications go - if you are not "into" Java it can be a pain to
set up the environment if the programmer has not used something like
install anywhere or other integrated installer (as they should do!). Far
easier to grab binaries sometimes.
In the end I think that we will see a seperation of languages into
camps. The C/C++ camp will be where performance and/or low level work is
required. The Java etc. camp will be where many business applications,
server applications and middle tier logic components are made because of
intrinsic language advantages. With the increase in power of PC's, I
think that we live in an interesting time as far as software development
goes.
As far as non-GUI work is concerned I can say that Java has equal
performance to native languages in many areas, but with the added
advantages of byte-code portability and a large API.
Like with all pragmatic issues I think that Java, C or C++ (or name your
language) is simply a tool in the programmers toolkit, and while I like
Java, I still use C quite a bit where needed to get the job done (TM).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 7 May 2001 14:10:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:40:09
>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:24:23
>>>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>>What can I say, if you say a tautology is not true, you are by
>>>>definition wrong.
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean there's no difference between a statement that is true
>>>and a statement that is unfalsifiable.
>>
>>Being unfalsifiable and being true can be two faces of the same
>>statement. The above statement is true. The rest I donīt care.
>
>That statement is false; all unfalsifiable statements are, by
>definition, untrue. This was proven by the philosopher of science Karl
>Popper several decades ago.
Then you are saying that my original statement, which was an obvious
tautology, is false? That's way beyond weird.
>>> At least to a reasonable man,
>>>like me. Whether you are likewise a reasonable man might well resolve
>>>to that point, however. Is everything you believe true to be considered
>>>unfalsifiable, Roberto?
>>
>>The above is not something I believe to be true. It is something I
>>know to be true, because itīs trivially derived from the required
>>features of something to be called an implementation of the API.
>
>To claim there is a distinction between what you believe and what you
>know is an unfalsifiable claim of omniscience.
It is, however, an eminently practical course of action.
>>>>>>Working
>>>>>>is part of being an implementation of the API.
>>>>>
>>>>>But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>Because not all programs are implementations of an API.
>>>
>>>The issue is the implementation of the API, not the program. So
>>>programs that don't use libraries don't have to work, in order to be
>>>programs?
>>
>>A bunch of code that doesnīt work is not a program. It is a copyrighted
>>work, and it can be licensed. It can be a part of a program, and it
>>can be the basis from which programs are derived.
>
>Who would ever license code which does not work?
Anyone who wants it to be protected by copyright, yet used by someone
else. Since the code is copyrighted, only through a license can anyone
else look at it.
> You're presuming that
>the "bunch of code" does not need modification (making it a derivative
>or a separate copyrighted work, not the original "bunch of code" at all)
>in order to become part of a program.
I am presuming nothing. It may need to be modified, it may not need to
be modified. It makes no difference.
> This is, again, the point of the
>matter: in theory this might be possible, but to try to defend it as a
>practical reality is to presume perfection of all programmers.
Non-working code is copyrighted by default.
>>>>>>If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
>>>>>>implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
>>>>>metaphysical integrity?
>>>>
>>>>The API can't exist or not exist. If it doesn't exist, it is not an API
>>>>and it is not a car.
>>>
>>>Did you mean "can exist or not exist"?
>>
>>No. I meant exactly what I wrote.
>
>So all APIs exist?
All APIs that exist indeed exist. Those APIs that don't exist are not
APIs.
> If an API "can't exist or not exist", and it is
>possible ("if it doesn't") for it not to exist, then no APIs exist, or
>all APIs exist.
Just because I give a consequence of nonexistence, it doesn't mean the
nonexistence is actual.
> Apparently, we've got a fractured abstraction here.
>Either APIs *can* "exist or not exist", or they do not exist. You know
>my vote is for the latter; they are abstractions that are handy for
>referring to complex relationships between various mathematical codes,
>but they don't ever exist as concrete things.
And that's where I disagree, because I have manipulated APIs. I have
been asked to create them, I have given them to others, I have waited
for them to exist, I have used them after they do. Saying they don't
exist is like saying my hands don't exist.
>>> If so, what signifies this
>>>'existence' in a concrete sense? Does an API simply 'exist' as soon as
>>>someone says it does?
>>
>>Almost. Iīd say as soon as someone creates it.
>
>It is apparent to me that you enjoy otherwise useless epistemological
>babbling. So I will accommodate you.
>
>If an API 'exists' as soon as someone 'creates' it, then there can be no
>APIs, since none have ever been created, but only described. You can't
>"use" an API, you can only "use" a library (or stub) corresponding to
>(described with) the API. The API remains an abstraction, entirely.
You 'use' the API, to create the implementation of the API, like
you create a blueprint to create a house, like you create a method
to factor a polynomial.
>This presumes that you actually meant something when you said "creates",
>of course, and I believe you did not.
Actually, I did mean pretty much what you said, only you are wrong.
> You meant to simply beg the
>question, "is an API created as soon as someone says it does", and
>entirely identical philosophical question to the first one. And so, in
>trying to pointedly and apparently successfully to avoid answering the
>question, we are left only with the fact that you are ignorant, and
>happy with that state of affairs.
Well, you seem to think APIs are not used and they don't exist.
I know that to be wrong. I would say you are ignorant in this particular
matter.
>>> It seems likely, since it is an abstraction, not
>>>a thing.
>>
>>An API is a thing. Yet it is a thing that can be created. Like a book.
>
>A book is a physical object. Is a book describing an API an API, or a
>book?
A book is a book, of course of course.
> If it is both, then the API is a description, a characteristic of
>a book, not an object like a book.
It doesn't follow from the above.
>>>Is not being a car sufficient?
>>
>>No, it is necessary, but not sufficient. Of the things that are not
>>cars, some are APIs. Of the things that donīt exist, there is no
>>way to know if any is an API.
>
>Your kindergarten level epistemology is cute, but very simplistic.
>Can't you go any faster?
Well, since you are asking silly things like "is not being a car
sufficient to be an API?" I thought I would slow down to your speed.
>>> Then it would always exist,
>>>wouldn't it, since an API is never a car?
>>
>>No.
>
>Why not? Things that are not cars exist, don't they?
Because not being a car is not sufficient to be an API. Your
premise is wrong.
> If none of the things that don't exist are APIs
Let me parse this: "none of the things that don't exist are APIs"
is the same as "all of the things that don't exist are not APIs"
right?
In that case, it makes no sense. The things that don't exist
have no properties. Among the properties they don't have is
the property of being an API (and that of not being an API,
as well).
Since the premise is false, the consequence is irrelevant
and snipped.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 7 May 2001 14:12:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>And I asked what about the concepts in your mind, and you found yourself
>>>trapped. Now you're getting the spanking you deserve.
>>
>>Nonsense. I am subject by the concepts in my mind, and I agreed to
>>that already. I think you are confused.
>
>No, you said that you were subject to some of them, but not others,
I don't recall saying it precisely like that.
>>>>That's where this whole subthread started. Check it out through the
>>>>references.
>>>
>>>Why? I read the whole thing the first time through. Believe me, your
>>>comments don't get any more reasonable on second, third, or fourth
>>>reading. I know; I've tried.
>>
>>Lack of reading skills, maybe.
>
>Doubtful; lack of writing skills is more obviously the explanation.
Well, I have at least a valid excuse for that.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
