Linux-Advocacy Digest #518, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (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: 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:19 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 14:48:20
[...]
>> These would be mathematical units, integers of time, are they not?
>
>That would depend on whether we were discussing discrete or continuous
>mathematics. I didn't specify, and the reason I didn't is that it does
>not matter what the units are. For your sake I will restate anyway.
>There are functions defined over the real numbers that are defined by
>an "if-else" test. I gave an example of one (that is, a "purely
>mathematical construct" that contains an if-else test).
I am still quite sure you are mistaken. Perhaps there are mathematical
systems for dealing with something other than algorithms, but there are
no 'if-then' tests in a purely *computational process*. The term does,
way back when, derive from the act of calculating; the application of
computers to *logic* is a relatively new invention.
>> That isn't conditional on any thing but the assumption the world will
>> still exist at the end of the for...next loop.
>
>Parse error.
If you are using time, it matters not if you are using discrete or
continuous mathematics; you are dealing with units of time. The
question is whether you believe they are quanta or relativistic, is all.
>> > The unit step is one example that comes to mind. Sounds like an
>> > if-else test to me (if time<0 then value=0 else value=1).
>>
>> So 2+2=7 IF what?
>
>Nonsensical.
Precisely.
>Apparently you didn't understand what I was talking
>about. I'll try again.
Likewise.
> The unit step function is a fundamental of
>signal processing. It is *defined* as:
>
>0 if time < 0
>1 if time >= 0
>
>The units of time can be either real numbers or integers, depending on
>whether you're talking about the continuous version or the discrete
>version of the function.
If it is a unit of something, it is numerical, and therefore
algorithmic, a matter of calculations, involving and requiring no
"lookups" other than as short-cuts for calculations.
>To recap, you asserted that an algorithm can't contain a "translation
>table".
I did not state that what anyone might call an algorithm will never
contain anything that anyone might call a translation table. The fact
is, algorithm != translation table, at all.
>I pointed out that it was trivial to remove the table and
>replace it with an equivalent series of "if-else" tests. You then said
>that such tests are "conditional processing" and not "algorithms" and
>that algorithms had to be based on "purely mathematical functions".
No, I said you filled your table with numbers you *calculated*, and so
you failed to grasp that they weren't at all a 'translation table'. I
never said that no algorithm can contain any if-else test. I said that
isn't related at all to whether it is an algorithm. If the if-else, and
all the values in the table, are purely mathematically derived, then it
is an algorithm.
>So I gave an example of a purely mathematical function that is defined
>in terms of if-else tests. I wanted to show that I could meet your
>test of being "purely mathematical" and still sneak in some
>"conditional processing". Now you seem to be saying that algorithms
>can only be based on specific kinds of math functions, ones that do not
>contain any conditionals, but it is hard to say for sure since you
>appear to be trying to avoid saying anything concrete.
You seem to have missed the point, which has nothing to do with
conditional processing, but translation tables. What's your problem?
>> >> An algorithm in software does not and cannot use translation tables;
>> >> every value must be calculated, not looked up, or it is not algorithmic.
>
>[snip using infinite series vs lookup tables to calculate the sine of an
> angle]
>
>> No, since you derived what you falsely called a "translation table"
>> from... what? A translation of something? No, from mathematical
>> calculations.
>
>Ok, so if I "calculate" the table, then it can be part of an algorithm,
>because it is not a translation table but a lookup table.
No, because it is algorithmically defined; both the translation table
and the 'pre-calculated values' table are 'lookup tables'.
>But if I "do
>something that isn't calculation" to make the table, then it can't be
>part of an algorithm because it is a translation table. Is that a
>correct interpretation of your argument?
No. That is a correct understanding of the actual term 'algorithm',
divorced of any inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or practical permutations
generated by its frequent use as a programmer's synonym for "any snippet
or arbitrary amount of code" or "any logical method for accomplishing a
process. The first is actually closer to the "real" meaning; any piece
of code can be expressed as a mathematical function, theoretically,
(even a real translation table, though it is not very useful as an
algorithm), but algorithms are *computational*, not *logical* procedures
or processes.
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>You actually had it right in the first place (when you said "an
>algorithm is a recursive computational procedure with a finite number
>of steps").
No shit. Really?
>You should have left it at that.
I did. I don't understand why you seem to be saying that you have come
up with any opposite result. I took the definition from a standard
dictionary, and it precisely matches what I already knew (and have now
argued) what an algorithm is, and more importantly, what is not really
an algorithm, even if someone says it is due to ignorance or
convenience.
>Instead you went off
>track into this "can't have a table in an algorithm" bullshit because
>you wanted Erik to be wrong. I find the lengths of illogic you are
>willing to go to in order to defend an absurd position quite amusing.
>
>So in that sense, yes, it does help.
As I suspected, you were really only trying to pick an argument over a
quibbling detail. Turns out, as happens so often with Erik himself,
that you didn't realize that it was your mistake, not mine, that was the
foundation of the quibble.
You should have simply asked some questions, and I'd have cleared up
your confusion much more quickly. Instead you went off track into this
"if-else allows translation tables to magically become algorithms"
bullshit because you wanted me to be wrong. I find the lengths of
posturing you are willing to go to in order to attack the logic of my
position quite boring.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:20 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 May 2001 15:05:08
>>> So 2+2=7 IF what?
>
>2+2=7 *if* 7=4. Of course 7=4 is pretty hard to achieve, but as soon
>as we, say, redefine "+" as an operation in a set different than the
>integers, such a thing may happen.
Well put. Aside from the nature of algorithms, this is a cogent example
that not everything that is an algorithm is an error free algorithm, yet
having an error could still disqualify something as an algorithm. It
also reduces the discussion to metaphysics, whether 7 'is' 4 if you
label it '7'. Metaphorically, the discussion should now result in
someone being called 'Hitler', but I'm happy to say we've no use for
that nonsense.
According to the correct definition of algorithm (from all perspectives)
the 'if' that you used in the sine function you described doesn't
disqualify it. You will notice you described the function as just that;
a function. I'll leave you with that word, and ignore what it might
mean, because the thing you posted was not an algorithm, though it might
express an algorithmic relationship. I might be wrong, and there might
actually be an "if" operator in mathematics, but I suspect you are
redefining things, as you have above illustrated why redefining '+'
might make sense. Your *extraction* of the math for this 'algorithm'
was in *natural language*, though not very readable language, and does
not express the *algorithm* involved in calculating things.
"sign(x) is 1 if x>0, -1 if x<0 and undefined at 0"
Express the thing completely mathematically (as you would if you
programmed it, for as we all know, computers are capable of nothing
except doing math with binary numbers) and it is an algorithm. I'm sure
that can't be what you used here, since I know the token 'is' isn't very
common in programming (though I guess it might be supported some places,
as an alternative for ==.) Put it in words, though, as you have, that
aren't simply mathematical symbols, and you've spoiled your proof that
it is an algorithm, whether it is or not.
Thus, I can agree with you; metaphorically, the calculation to derive a
sine, or whatever, is an algorithm. But yet disagree with you
analytically; what you have presented is NOT that algorithm.
The fact that 'if' is both a token in programming languages and a word
in the english language doesn't make them interchangeable in this
respect. You can interchange the word 'if' for any other mathematical
symbol, but it must still have the same mathematical meaning. The
english language word "if" has metaphorical, not simply mathematical,
meaning. If that is the 'if' you are using, it is not an algorithm you
are communicating, but a thought.
Bringing us back to the root of the real debate that you and I have been
having since we were first embroiled in an argument, Roberto. Do you
think that thoughts are algorithmic? What do you think that means?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:22 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 08:58:43
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >What spanking? You were led by the nose down into the water and soaked in
>> >another thread T Max.
>>
>> Yea, you keep saying that.
>
>What's this? The worm wiggling on the hook?
Apparently that's what you're doing, yes. Child.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:21 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 14:53:52
>On 13 May 2001 23:34:36 -0500, Chad Everett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>A translation table is a form of lookup table. The DES uses lookup
>> >>tables. Does this make it not an alogorithm? The Knuth-Morris-Pratt
>> >>string search uses a lookup table too. In spite of that, Knuth thinks
>> >>it is an algorithm. Is he wrong?
>
>> Are the lookup tables known by everyone?
>
>Some are fixed (and known), some are computed at runtime. Max asserted
>in his other post that this makes a difference.
It is not that which makes a difference, no. Of the ones which are
'fixed', are they shortcuts for mathematical calculations, or are they
arbitrary translations of one token set into another? That is what
makes the difference. As I have said all along, and only this is really
what I have said, however often I might have sounded like I was claiming
some other thing about algorithms, "translation tables need not apply".
Since some lookup tables are only like the old logarithm tables used by
human computers, they are really a way of calculating something. And,
of course, since any arbitrary table can be expressed mathematically (or
how else can you get it into the form of 1s and 0s needed by a silicon
computer?) you can 'cheat' the definition that way, if your goal is to
argue away the very concept of an algorithm, so that you can
conveniently apply the term to things which aren't algorithms.
Translation tables are not algorithms, and no algorithms contain
translation tables. 'Lookup tables' might be something else altogether,
and seems at this point to be trolling.
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:23 GMT
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 May 2001 03:24:15 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 May 2001 14:24:37 GMT;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
>writes:
>>>>In article <9dkf33$okk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>Am I correct in believing that I can create a derivative work, as
>>>>long as I don't try to distribute it (as that would be required to
>>>>make the copyright owner aware of my activities).
>>>
>>>Not if you are considering United States copyright law. The exclusive
>>>right to create derivative works is in addition to the exclusive right
>>>of distribution. So you infringe by creating the derivative work, whether
>>>it is distributed or not. See 17 USC 106.
>>>
>>>That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
>>>to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
>>>that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
>>>about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
>>>is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
>>>still be available.
>>
>>Pure metaphysics. No, Stefaan, it is not illegal to prepare derivative
>>works, as long as you don't distribute them.
[...statute making preparation of derivative works itself
'illegal'...]
Okay, you are right, Lee.
"No, Stefaan, it is not *unlawful* to prepare derivative works, as long
as you don't distribute them. The statute makes it illegal, but it is
impossible for it to be illegal, because to prove it happened would
require an illegal invasion of your privacy without just cause, unless
you distribute it."
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:25 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001
>In article <9dm5f5$ggt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
>writes:
>>>In article <9dkf33$okk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Am I correct in believing that I can create a derivative work, as
>>>long as I don't try to distribute it (as that would be required to
>>>make the copyright owner aware of my activities).
>>
>> Not if you are considering United States copyright law. The exclusive
>> right to create derivative works is in addition to the exclusive right
>> of distribution. So you infringe by creating the derivative work, whether
>> it is distributed or not. See 17 USC 106.
>>
>> That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
>> to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
>> that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
>> about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
>> is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
>> still be available.
>
>I'm wondering if we haven't got a chicken-and-egg problem here.
>If I'd like to write a pre/sequel to "GBTW" using the perspective
>of Chinese railroad workers in California :=), I'm breaking the law.
>But without preparing at least a substantial plot/character
>outline, I cannot sollicit the copyright owner's approval, and
>the outline would already be a derivative work...
THIS IS MY POINT! Ultimately, ALL consideration of copyright based on
some 'metaphysical substance' called "intellectual property" which is
owned and can be sold and leased like real property eventually ALWAYS
comes down to the same chicken-and-egg point. This question you've
raised is, yes, *is*, the same issue that Roberto and Les and Lee have
been trying to beat me up over for months and months. The 'chicken and
egg' problem of how software can be written when software is "protected"
is, in fact, also the scam used by MS to rip off the public so
completely and outrageously (you shouldn't EVEN be able to make money
selling just OSes, in a sane market, yet MS became the richest
corporation on the planet doing JUST that) AND the reason RMS created
the GPL!
Copyright is not metaphysics. This 'glitch' shouldn't happen at all,
not in the real world and not in our minds. There IS not "chicken and
egg", unless somebody is trying to *profiteer*, rather than simply
*profit*, on their's or some other person's "intellectual property".
The goal of copyright isn't to provide author's wealth; it is not a
matter of individual right to own property. The goal of copyright, as
clearly expressed in the U.S. Constitution, is one of *public policy*.
It is a *social* (legal, not physical) consideration given to ensure
that authors continue to develop science and the useful arts.
"Science", now much more firmly defined than when those words were first
used, has one absolute mechanism which is both necessary and sufficient
for its development and benefit to the public: publishing. That isn't
supposed to be a method of maintaining ownership, guarded by licensing
and restrictions.
So, no, Stefaan, there's no way in hell that you could be infringing by
drafting an outline for a possible sequel to a book you didn't write in
the hopes of selling your work. YET, the FSF is on solid ground by
claiming that they will seek to prove in court that any program which
relies on any GPL-only library is derivative of GPL works.
It is only a conflict if you have a metaphysical understanding of 'IP',
and as you've pointed out, and the variety and frequency of what I claim
are equivalent examples, this is unsupportable. Copyright is
book-keeping. Plain and simple.
ALL private use is "fair use", unless it is criminal. ALL commercial
use is infringement, unless it is not criminal. There is no other
practical way to deal with it. Plain and simple.
Whether you have to adapt the text of the law, adopt a new
interpretation of the law, or attempt a new application of the law,
you've gotta change your views if you have a metaphysical understanding
of copyright or the law. After all, except for the fact that the word
exists rhetorical, science has proven pretty conclusively that there are
no metaphysics.
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:26 GMT
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 May 2001 12:03:33 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
>writes:
>>But without preparing at least a substantial plot/character
>>outline, I cannot sollicit the copyright owner's approval, and
>>the outline would already be a derivative work...
>
>Or not, depending on how much of the expression, rather than the ideas,
>of the original work the outline includes.
>
>Don't use the TMax theory of what a derivative work is. (If you are
>deriving your value from the original work.) Use the one in the copyright
>laws.
Don't throw in a random attempt to ridicule unless you are really sure
your argument is a pile of horse manure. "The TMax theory" indeed. The
one in the law is the FSF one, and that's the one I'm using. If you
don't like it, go change the law, or talk to the FSF, don't whine to me
about it.
Argue like an adult, dammit.
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:27 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 04:04:22 GMT;
>On Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You can't distribute copyrighted works (or derivative works) without the
>>permission of the author. Yes, the INTENT of this action by the FSF
>>*was* to 'scare people off'; they don't want GNU to become the basis of
>>a commercial code-base, since providing an alternative to commercial
>>code-bases is the whole point of the GNU.
>>
>>Quite whining, that's all I've got to say. If you don't believe there's
>
>So disagreeing with you is whining.
Some is. Some isn't. It has nothing to do with whether it is
disagreeing with me. What beyond your assumption that everyone is as
bigoted as you are gave you that impression?
> You're an idiot and now you are
>once again a filtered idiot.
Bye. Next you'll filter the FSF out of your little fantasy world, and
then everything will be all better, eh?
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:28 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 05:53:44
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 22:03:27
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> Sit down. Write a program that uses a GPL library which you've never
>> >> seen and don't have. (This is the issue, I know; you think the
>> >> developer should have end-user rights of fair use, particularly with
>> >> open code.) Using only the API specification, and no prior testing
>save
>> >> a stub library, create the program. Distribute it under a non-GPL
>> >> license. Wait for the FSF thugs to threaten to take you to court. (So
>> >> far just like the RIPEM guys, right? Except they begged the question
>by
>> >> using the library itself, not only the API and a stub.)
>> >
>> >This is irrelevant since they have the right to use the library, they
>just
>> >don't have the right to redistribute it as part of a non-GPL product,
>> >which they didn't.
>>
>> To use a component in production is to use it commercially. IIRC, the
>> GPL only gives you the right to use the software for your private use.
>> Private use != commercial use, even if it is simply the connotation, not
>> the action, of "use" that changes.
>
>There is no concept of 'commercial' in the GPL. It restricts nothing but
>copying, modification, and distribution, and restricts those in the same
>ways for everyone.
There is no conception of "commercial" in any contract; most contracts
are inherently commercial, though. The issue isn't what it does, Les,
that's probably why you are confused. The issue is why it does it.
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:29 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >They do that because [...]
>>
>> Just wanted to let you know, I stopped reading right there. Just
>> because.
>
>I'm glad you keep me informed of these things, Max. :D
You shouldn't have stopped having any validity to your position so early
in the post. Next time, save the rampant teleology (assuming you can
declare unilaterally *why* someone did something they did, particularly
when it is so obviously contrary to the facts as your bullshit is) and
perhaps you'll manage to make a point. No, people didn't not buy
Windows because.... anything. They bought it. It is a monopoly. That
is illegal. If you do not understand why that is your problem, not
ours. I don't leave the matter rest on "because", as you have. But you
have rejected any reasonable explanation, so stop boring the SHIT out of
us by repeatedly trying to pretend to be pleased by your own stupidity.
Yes, yes, I'll do likewise. I am SO tired of fucking children on
Usenet.
--
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:30 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >So it is your contention that I am being dishonest,
>> >yet that I may still believe what I say.
>>
>> Being dishonest stands on its own, Daniel. I have no need to correlate
>> it with anything but dishonesty.
>
>I guess you have a novel personal definition of
>"dishonest" as well.
>
>Perhaps I should therefore not be offended when
>you call me dishonest. For I know it means
>studly. :D
Child. You're a fucking child. I suppose you have your own novel
personal definition of dishonest; of course you wouldn't be offended.
Get it? We KNOW rhetoric is an endless game for fucking children.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to make some rather important and serious
ADULT points here. I WISH you children would listen to your mothers.
They weren't lying when they said that you should stay out of
discussions where adults don't watch their language.
GET THE HINT?
<No. So I guess I'm done.>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
