Linux-Advocacy Digest #528, Volume #34 Tue, 15 May 01 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: FrontPage clone? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Win 9x is horrid :test ("Richard Curzon")
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Dave Martel)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Top Servers: (.)
Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Article: IBM Challenges Microsoft's .NET (.)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Security in Open Source Software (Dave Martel)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Mart van de
Wege")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Richard Curzon")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 02:21:30 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FrontPage clone?
"William R. Cousert" wrote:
>
> Is there anything similar to FrontPage for Linux? A coworker uses FrontPage
> on a daily basis, and would like to switch over to Linux.
>
> If not, is there any way to get FrontPage 97 or 2000 to run under Wine? How
> well do they work with Win4Lin?
A text editor + htmltidy
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Richard Curzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid :test
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:26:59 GMT
test
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:38:49 -0600
On Tue, 15 May 2001 14:56:44 GMT, "Richard Curzon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We need certified privacy and user rights statements required to be filed by
>statute, covering specific regulated topics against regulated standards,
>audited by independent third parties with their own licensing and
>reputations to protect.
Agreed, but it ain't gonna happen. Congress can't even come up with a
meaningful anti-spam law, let alone laws enforcing privacy rights.
Sure they promise a lot, and there's always some bill in the works and
things look Real Promising, but nothing ever actually happens.
The fact is, our government is run by business - and business doesn't
WANT anti-spam or privacy laws. No _meaningful_ solution to this
problem is ever going to come out of the government. The only possible
solution is a technical one implemented by users themselves. Open
source is it.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:51:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
> > Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Linux has built in version control.
> > >
> > > Does it have file versions? As in x.a;1, x.a;2, x.a;3 ?
> > Yeah of course, CVS or RCS give files versions.
> > Is that what you meant ?
> >
>
> Pete is referring to any file... its from the VMS world... where if you
> edit any file and save it and the re-edit the same file again you would
> get filename.ext;1 and filename.ext;2 etc. There is also a way to limit
> the versioning of file names. Then if your are happy with your project
> or whatever you can then do a purge... this eliminates earlier versions
> and leaves you with the latest version.
Actually, this is one of the things I miss from VMS. In the non-VMS
world applications often create .bak or similar but a single backup
version won't help when you're on a roll then realize you accidentally
deleted a chunk of code/text/whatever 3 versions ago. For personal-use
code I often drop in a "fSafeOpen" function in place of "fopen" that
appends ~1 (previous version), ~2 (next latest) etc. to existing files
that are overwritten. (My preference is to stop at ~9 and an existing
~9 is deleted.) And I have "safe" versions of a few utililities like cp
and mv. Of course the overhead is high, and it is not suitable for bulk
copies and moves (just use the standard commands for those), but when
you're working on a few files in a project the overhead is negligible
and pays off in terms convenience, recovery, and peace of mind. It is
of course extremely easy to clean up the mess with rm *~? when you're
done. CVS/RCS is fine, but I think it makes more sense for relatively
stable versions as opposed to every little code experiment.
Maybe this is not for everyone but it works for me.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Top Servers:
Date: 15 May 2001 16:51:39 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The top unclustered systems:
>>
>>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster
>>
>> Where is Windows?
> Considering that all of the computers in this list do not run Windows 2000,
> it would be a little hard to compete on the same hardware, don't you think?
Its hard to compete on different hardware actually.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS
Office 97/2000?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:56:24 +0100
> I've seen a lot of argument both for and against the Computer Modern
> font family; the whole farrago smacks to me of Holy War. Might as well
> argue about whether Vi or Emacs is a better text editor...
Well, they're certainly not _bad_, and I doubt anyone would dispute that.
Since that is the case, three is a good argument for putting them in the
PDF spec, that argument being that they're very widely used.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Article: IBM Challenges Microsoft's .NET
Date: 15 May 2001 16:56:39 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,43766,00.html>
>>
>> IBM Takes On Microsoft
>> Wired News Report
>>
>> 10:55 a.m. May 14, 2001 PDT
>>
>> "IBM directly challenged Microsoft's .Net Internet services strategy
>> on Monday, annoucing that its own new Web-based development platform,
>> "Dynamic E-Business," will support all open Internet standards."
> One has to wonder which "open" internet standards it will use, since many of
> the features needed have no standards.
Yes. Once again ladies and gentlemen, mr. funkybreath is smarter than IBM.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:57:28 +0100
>> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
>
> If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install Microsoft.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 15 May 2001 16:57:55 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, it isnt. Dont fall into the trap, however, of assuming that just
>> because something is not certified by the open group that it is not just
>> as good, if not superior to that which is.
>>
>> In fact, that is very often the case.
> When did BSD cease to become UNIX.
Technically it never was.
> And can an new holder of a name remove
> the name that was given to something by the old holder. If they can't
> then BSD is still UNIX. Not that it maters, though.
It doesnt matter a whit, but youre wrong anyway.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: 15 May 2001 16:58:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:20 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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'.
Nononono, not "labeling 7 as 4". 7=4. 7 equals 4. 7 being equal to 4.
The equality is something that must be defined, you know.
> 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
sign, not sine.
> 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.
The above *is* the mathematical definition. Ask a mathematician.
Donovan will do, IIRC ;-)
> 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?
I don't know if thoughts are algorithmic. I guess that doesn't mean much.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:59:59 +0100
>> I am confused. Do you think homosexuality is genetic or choice?
> I have heard many gays say that they did not choose to be gay, they say
> they had NO choice. Its genetic, they say. sky
(I was asking what he thought to illustrate his absurd point of view and
based on the opinions of gays, I believe there is little or no choice)
That aside, no choice != genetic.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 15 May 2001 17:01:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 May 2001 23:49:26 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Gay-male sex leads to AIDS...especially when a condom breaks.
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't. Sex is how AIDS is transmitted, but sex alone
>> >> does not lead to AIDS any more than masturbation leads to hairy
>> >> palms.
>> >
>> >Let's see...if you're a man, and you have sex with a female infected
>> >with AIDS, your chances of contracting AIDS is....
>>
>> If you're a man, and your have sex with another man who does not have
>> AIDS, your chance of getting AIDS is?
>
>And you know that he's not infected with AIDS how, exactly?
Chances are he is not. If you want to improve the odds, ask for tests.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Security in Open Source Software
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:52:05 -0600
On Tue, 15 May 2001 12:40:05 +0100, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Pulsford wrote:
>>
>> pip wrote:
>> >
>> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >
>> > > An interesting article about security in Open Source projects.
>> > > http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/websecu/article/0,,12013_621851,00.html
>> >
>> > This is interesting but silly.
>> >
>> [...]
>> > Open source is open -> people still don't find the bugs
>>
>> This is a valid point, why should you doubt him? He has the experience
>> to back it up. Open source is better than closed source for security
>> but it's not god.
>
>Well, there are good examples of where bugs are not found. But I would
>argue that the probability of fast discovery is an order of magnitude
>higher when many critically minded hackers try to understand the code to
>introduce improvements. There is some sense of security through
>obscurity, but at the end of the day it is about a personal choice. If
>there security though obscurity idea is valid then you would expect not
>to to see the slew of database and web server security bugs, and I mean
>the new bugs - not previous exploits that don't get patched. So the
>question I would address back is: which is better ? - an open source
>project where many bugs are open but solved, or a closed source project
>where they linger? Where would you place your trusted data? Which gives
>you the power to check (if you have the ability) ?
And let's not forget the spyware issue. Closed source does nothing to
protect users from trojans placed in the code by the software's own
developer. MS has already been caught in a multitude of privacy
invasions - stamping word documents with GUID's, shipping information
about hardware and applications out of users' systems, and I suspect
that more than a few website-exploitable privacy holes in IE were not
accidental. Talk to the people in alt.comp.freeware and they'll tell
you that freeware has become a privacy minefield. Ditto for games. I
don't think I've installed a single game in the past year that didn't
either install known spyware clients or attempt some kind of
unauthorized communications.
Open souce isn't just about protecting us from blackhat hackers. It
also protects us the from very people who write our software.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:05:02 +0200
In article <jT9M6.926$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word
> processing
>> > document, for instance.
>>
>> Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
>
> Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
>
>
>
Just tried it StarOffice 5.2. Does it just fine.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:09:22 -0400
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dqpng$fvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Don't weasel out of it. What is your proof?
> >>
> >> http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey/
> >
> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server
> > can server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>
> And why shuold there be more names hosted by UNIX than WinNT?
>
> Mabey because it is a lot better at it?
And why should there be more people choosing MS desktop OS's?
hmmmmmmm.......Maby because it is a lot better at it?
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:22:31 +0200
In article <eDZL6.829$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Real claimed that this was an unintentional programming error - but
>> > this is the second (or possibly the third) time one of their products
>> > has "unintentionally" violated users' privacy.
>> >
>> > It'll be a cold day in hell before I'll allow any RealNetworks
>> > product anywhere near my systems.
>>
>> Contrast with Microsoft, who openly admits that you'll need to send
>> them intimate knowledge of your machine if you wish to "activate" your
>> products in the future.
>
> It's not intimate knowledge, it's the equivelant of an MD5 checksum.
> It's a hash created by a number of unique identifiers, with no way to
> reverse the data to retrieve the original data.
>
>
>
>
Ok, from c't, issue #9 (23/4-6/5/2001), german edition:
"Our attempt to use a man-in-the-middle attack to listen in on the HTTPS
connection between Windows-XP and Clearing House...failed: not only does
XP encrypt the data, but it receives new certificates used for further
communication...
Extremely questionable is why Microsoft would go to such lengths to
simply exchange a few numbers, especially since the numbers are already
tied to the PC hardware.
...The amount of data exchanged during activation leaves all possible
options open in the light of the complexity of the process: It is
possible that aside from the necessary data...other information is
exchanged, it is also possible that the bloat in the data traffic is
caused by the certificates alone. C't advises not to use the online
activation until Microsoft makes the process more transparent. In the
meantime you're better off using the telephone."
Translation and some paraphrasing by me. I'm sure Peter Kohlmann (sorry
Peter, no umlauts on this keyboard) can confirm that this translation is
as exact as I can make it.
One thing is for certain, Microsoft Germany is not going to be happy with
this article. C't is fairly widely read, and this will mean that their
callcenter will have some busy times ahead.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:34:51 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3b004931$0$37252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johansan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remember - growing from 100 users to 1000 users is a 1000% growth rate -
> but what does that mean when your competitor ONLY grows 1% from
> 100,000,000 users to 101,000,000 users?
>
>
>
Hmmm. Interesting. You get caught in yet another lie, you get plonked,
and you change the spelling of your name. Do you still deny that all you
are capable of is trolling?
Don't bother answering, the question is rhetorical, and I've already
added the changed spelling to my bozo list.
*plonk* (bis)
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Richard Curzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:45:19 GMT
Where voter appeal fails to do what the powers want, they just bring out the
tanks in some countries.
The US powers-that-be have broken new ground by showing that "tank" money
can be much more effective if placed in politics and advertising.
But no matter how far you go, the people are still the key. The tanks
didn't save Trujillo, and sometimes the democratic winner spends half what
the loser does.
As soon as any candidate bucks and starts advocating something the people
want but industry doesn't, he just might get elected. Then the domino
effect.
Conservatives are concerned about porn, which is in fact the most virulent
exploitation going on. Liberals are concerned about privacy. I can see a
big fat target for a politician to aim for here, IMO think it's bound to
happen... just hope it is balanced when it does.
regards
Richard.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:07:08 -0400
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Edward Rosten 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.
> >
> > Then you admit that it's a choice.
>
> Do you think ceberal paulsy a choice? Hint: it isn't genetic.
So, you admit that it's a result of a defect of some sort.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
>
> u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
--
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
******************************
