Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux in college & high school (Carl Fink)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Chad Myers")
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 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:23 GMT
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 May 2001 01:07:34 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>>Check the U.S. Constitution, which tends to take precedence over
>>>>ANYTHING in statute.
>>>
>>>Funny, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about an exclusive
>>>right "to profit." What it does say is the "Congress shall have the
>>>Power" to secure for authors exclusive rights to their writings. And
>>>that is what Section 106 spells out.
>>>
>>>So, the Constitution gives Congress authority to pass a copyright law.
>>>They did. What do you think "takes precedence"?
>>
>>The Constitution, of course. Always has, always will. Says so, right
>>in the Constitution somewhere, I think. Since now you've gotten a copy,
>>why don't you look it up for us?
>
>Seems like you *don't* have a copy, or at least don't bother to look at
>it before writing. It's strange that you can write hundreds of lines
>of junk, but can't take a minute or two to actually look to see what
>you are saying is correct. It's not what you think that counts, it's
>what is really there.
E:\pub\data\Constitution.txt
>And, as usual, you're wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that
>says that it takes preference over a law passed by Congress. What it
>does say is:
>
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
> be made in Pursuance thereof; [...]
On the topic of your point that it's not what you think that counts,
it's what is really there, I direct your attention to the term
'pursuance'. They even helpfully capitalized it for you, so that you
would not lose sight of the fact that it is there. Metaphorically, of
course.
>This is what, for example, prevents a state from passing an intellectual
>property law that protects something that Congress has decided not to
>protect, such as works whose copyright has expired or unpatentable boat
>hulls.
It is also, despite your renewed attempt to argue the matter as state
contract law versus federal copyright law, what makes all federal law
valid only "in pursuance of" the Constitution of the United States.
Face it, Lee. Your argument is utterly hollow. Yes, all of copyright
law, and patent too, not to mention at least a small chunk of trade
secret law are rooted entirely in that one short sentence authorizing
Congress:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.
And if it doesn't do that, then it is the copyright law that is wrong,
not the "infringer".
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:25 GMT
Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
19:12:29 -0700;
>Lee Hollaar wrote:
>> What provision of the current Copyright Act do you feel is
>> unconstitutional, or otherwise preempted by the Constitution?
>> And why do you feel that it is?
>
>I would say that the retroactive term extensions (and possibly, though
>not necessarily, prospective term extensions if they differ
>significantly in character from that envisioned by the Framers) violate
>the "limited term" language of the Constitution.
Here here. Particularly given that profit can be turned on words much
more quickly these days, and the amount of profit available, due to
global product, makes even a short term of ownership more than
sufficient for capital development as seems necessary, according to the
pundits.
>I would say that the restriction on the distribution of
>anticircumvention technology (not really part of what is traditionally
>known as "copyright", but part of the Copyright Act) violates the First
>Amendment, if that restriction is applied to source code and certainly
>if it applies to academic papers.
Here here. I think we can go so far as to say that the DMCA itself is a
chimera that should be put to rest, and whatever parts are salvageable
turned into some worthwhile laws protecting individual expression of
ideas, as well as corporation ownership of access to expression of
ideas.
>I have no idea if this is what Max was talking about, since I don't read
>his posts.
Now *that* hurts. You'd think that if you carpet-bombed a group as much
as I do, people would have some idea what you're talking about, even if
they didn't agree with you. I certainly agree with you Jeffrey, and
though these aren't the arguments I use, I would be happy to defend
them.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:26 GMT
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 May 2001 04:03:00 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Lee Hollaar wrote:
>>> What provision of the current Copyright Act do you feel is
>>> unconstitutional, or otherwise preempted by the Constitution?
>>> And why do you feel that it is?
>>
>>I would say that the retroactive term extensions (and possibly, though
>>not necessarily, prospective term extensions if they differ
>>significantly in character from that envisioned by the Framers) violate
>>the "limited term" language of the Constitution.
>
>The DC Circuit didn't seem too impressed with that argument.
>
>I wonder how many creators of copyrighted works would be happy without
>the term extension, [...]
We wonder why you can't see that you've already missed the point.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:27 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> MS stands convicted of monopolization and restraint of trade on three
>> >> counts.
>> >
>> >Yet the indictment and trial was supposed to be about tying of a browser.
>> >http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm
>>
>> It was, and so are the convictions.
>
>And so will be, the appeal. Matter of fact they've already told Jackson he
>was wrong once. Now the second time he's got to be told the same thing (that
>tying is a good thing). I suspect they won't be so nice about it.
Blah, blah, blah. We've probably heard all we're going to hear on the
subject, I'd imagine. The oral arguments made the point clear; the
appearance of impropriety is all well and good, but it is not, by
itself, impropriety.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:28 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Just for reference, is the "Hudson Institute" to the left or the right
>> of the far-right CATO Institute?
>
>Lets put it this way. When they piss...you think it's raining.
I can't really see how that would answer the question, Mr.
Republicans-throw-insults-to-avoid-thinking.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:29 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> When did micro$oft gain majprity in the server market? Compare the
>> market share between micor$oft and the *nixs.
>
>It depends on who's doing the counting. Linux zealouts are partial to using
[...]
Please provide any numbers, no matter who is counting, that shows
Microsoft gaining a majority in the overall server market, comparing
Windows monopoly crapware to Unix.
Hell, even *Microsoft's* figures have Linux gaining more ground than
W2K!
"Depends on who's doing the counting" my ass.
--
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
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:29 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 12 May 2001 20:00:08
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dis52$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Bragging? HARDLY! Stating that, yes, indeed, there is a lame ass telnet
>> > server in W2K - sure. But who in their right mind would still use telnet
>> > when so much better is available?
>>
>> Like SSH on Linux...
>
>or SSH on windows - but, again, why?
The question simply doesn't make any sense at all to any reasonable
person, Jan. This is the root of your stupidity. The only question
that exists in such a circumstance, from any perspective but theirs (and
therefore they have no need or desire to explain it to you,
necessarily), is "why not". There being no need for an answer (since
believe it or not, Jan, they are aware of GUIs, and know how to use them
and recognize their value) other than "I thought it would be fun", you
can take your monopoly-inspired second-guessing and ram it up your Back
Orifice.
And so, again, the question isn't 'why' but "why not?"
--
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
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:30 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:28:46
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9djsjs$c22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > A> It doesn't takes weeks to do GUI. B> A good GUI allows you to do the
>> > same.
>> >
>>
>> Really? You have a GUI that can provide all the functionality of Unix
>> commands and pipes? Where is this magical GUI?
>
>Clipboard?
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
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
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:32 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dliov$kjd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <i5iL6.653$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >You are trying to
>> >> > propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
>> >>
>> >> 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
>> >
>> > 120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum.
>>
>> If you know anything about statistics, then you'll know that quoting only
>> the maximum is meaningless.
>>
>> 128 days MEAN _with_ a nightly reboot. Yeah stellar!
>>
>> (Mean: thererfore some actually crashed _before_ 120 days. Geez).
>
>Are you trying to suggest that there are no linux servers that ever crash
>within the first 100 or 200 days? I hate to tell you this, but there are.
It's wintrolls like you that "try to suggest" things, Erik, that aren't
so. You're not actually fooling anyone with your meaningless rhetoric.
>Mean also means some crashed AFTER 120 days.
"Mean" means if you put it with "Time To Failure", the numbers for
Windows suck. That's what it means. They suck *really bad*, too.
--
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
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:33 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 12 May 2001 19:47:07
[...]
>> Are you volunteering to pay for Linux TPC testing. A small problem with
>> open source, free operating systesm; nobody is standing by with a billion
>> dollars to run it through all the hoops.
>
>Naaa... only a few million - but we've been reminded over and over and over
>that, gee Linux is Free (tm)(c) linux trovalds so according to those people
>obviously everything associated with a free OS by definition is
>"practically" free - or so it would seem listening to them.
>
>Your telling me of ALL the linux companies out there, no one has the
>balls^H^H^H^H^Hmoney
"Reason". "Need". "Desire".
>to run a TPC test?
Yes. It's free, so you can just try it yourself for your application.
Why would anyone care about benchmarks that someone else did for
whatever reason?
>(then again, these companies run tests in house before trying them
>publically, perhaps linux HAS been through TPC results but no one is willing
>to do them publically).
Not that, either. That's why you don't see every single slot on the top
ten million systems all being Windows, the way MS would like. They have
the money. They have the time. What they ain't got, obviously, is the
technology.
--
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
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:34 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 May 2001 12:12:05
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Matt - you are so desperate.
Jan; you've become my favorite troll. Just thought I'd warn you.
>Instead of being able to deal with this head on - you are going after heat
>from a different voltage on processors???????
>
>DOH! MAN - that's bad...
Who want's to see me spank Jan until he cries for his momma like a
little baby?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: 14 May 2001 02:08:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:59:07 -0600 Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I started thinking about that after hitting Send. FreeBSD is derived
>from BSD but I'm not sure what the relationship is between the
>development team and Berkely.
None. See www.freebsd.org. It's *based* on UC Berkeley 4.4BSD, though.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:28:31 -0500
"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I will agree that the GPL is misleading and can trap the unwary,
> but simply changing the wording of the GPL won't solve the problem
> because the change in license wouldn't cover previously released
> code. I think the next best thing would be for the FSF to include
> an explanation of their position with their libraries.
>
The ONLY way that I'd consider (personal opinion) that RMS/FSF have
reformed their ethics to the bare minimum would be an inclusion of
a dispassionate, clear, non-rhetorical discription of the license, including
NO trick language or ill defined words such as 'free.' Included in this
ethically improved clarification would be explainations of variations
of author's interests, and an acknowledgement that not every author
of GPLed works has the same extreme opinions as RMS. Hopefully,
the FSF is composed of more people, with more diverse opinions than
RMS, else the FSF simply becomes a mouthpiece for a VERY unnecessarily
opinionated person.
Such a clarification and honest disclosure would help provide a
major improvement in the opinions of people who consider misleading
usage of words (such as 'free', or redefinitions of words like 'is') as
essentially equivalent to lieing. Of course, such misusage ON PURPOSE
is a lie.
John
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:13:17 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rLEL6.737$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <GvbL6.45194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> Grief, you people are pathetic. Microsoft has lost the Internet server
> > >> market. Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year.
> > >
> > > That's including Office and such as well. How many were in Red Hat Linux
> > > and the software that ships with it? At least that many.
> >
> > Can't you read. Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW in 2000. A RECORD.
>
> And I would bet that Linux had just as many, if not more. It's just that
> they aren't as well publicized or as heavily hit. For instance, Red Hat 7.1
> has had six security advisories in just the last month alone.
>
> Red Hat 7.0 has had 45 security advisories in the last 6 months.
>
> That's not counting the security patches which didn't make "advisory"
> status, such as the stealth security updates in the kernel patches.
And that's just there little niche software. Imagine if they sold the
number and volume of products that Microsoft does. The number would
be more like 450 rather than 45.
-c
------------------------------
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:34:55 -0400
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 23:51:45 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Where in my statements did I say I was afraid of homosexuals. I am not
> >> afraid of them anymore than I am afraid of people with bipolar disorder
> >> or any other genetic malfunction.
> >
> >If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I suggest
> >you publish.
>
> I really don't understand why so many hetero men have something
> against gay guys. A higher percentage of men than women are gay so
> when two males pair off that just means two more unattached females
> competing for my own attentions. :)
Personally, don't mind if gays do what they do, just as long as they
refrain from BRINGING IT TO MY ATTENTION.
--
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: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:35:33 -0400
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <>If the overwhelming majority of men were truly bisexual, as you claim,
> <>then why what reason would that be?
>
> He assumes that since he is bi-sexual everyone else must be also. Go figure.
>
Exactly. Chrisv is projecting.
> Robert W Lawrence
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 1Peter 5:7
--
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: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:36:58 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 18:48:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> > Judging someone on the basis of their LETHAL-DISEASE-TRANSMITTING ***BEHAVIOR***
> >> > is common sense evaluation, not bigotry.
> >>
> >> This idea is very common indeed, but has not much to do with sense.
> >> It doesn't matter _where_ you put your Aaron in, Aaron. It has to do
> >> with condoms, testing and confidence.
> >
> >Gay-male sex leads to AIDS...especially when a condom breaks.
> >Hope that helps.
>
> The above statement is true.
> So is this one: "Heterosexual intercourse leads to AIDS... especially
> when a condom breaks".
Only in Africa.
You see, the female reproductive tract is MADE to deal with foreign genetic material.
The rectum is not.
Hope that helps.
>
> Yes, Aaron, also intercourse with russian women who are afraid of being
> deported if they leave you leads to AIDS... especially when a condom
> breaks.
In your dreams.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
