Linux-Advocacy Digest #735, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Michael Marion)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("~¿~")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Leonard Fehskens)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[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: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:10:11 GMT
"the tree by the river" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <vTTO6.1361$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Soyack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Kish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > How about hatred of homosexuals? Homophobe is not common
> >> > usage in the USA.
> >>
> >> Yes it is.
> >>
> >> Pick up a dictionary and take a look.
> >
> >Any dictionary or politically correct dictionaries?
>
> www.dictionary.com lists it, as does the American Heritage
> dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary.
And the first definition given is fear of homosexuals.
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation...
Date: 23 May 2001 20:15:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:06:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:46:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
>> >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
>> >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
>> >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
>> >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
>> >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
>> >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
>> >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
>> >> >
>> >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
>> >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
>> >>
>> >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
>> >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
>> >> illegal.
>> >
>> >Absolutely not.
>> >
>> >Read the Posse Commitatus Act. It **CLEARLY** states that the Army can be used
>> >to do law enforcement with the permission of the governor of the state(s) in
>> >question.
>>
>> With permission.
>>
>> > Remember all the times the Army was used in the 1950's and 60's.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> >The MARINES can be sent into any state WITHOUT the permission of the Governor.
>>
>> And they will still not be a law enforcement agency.
>
>Bzzzzzzt! Wrong.
>They can do anything the President orders them to do, within the limits
>of the Constitution.
If the law says a presidential order is enough to enter a person's house,
the presidential order *is* permission to enter such a house.
Yet, the marines and the army are not a law enforcement agency. If you say
they are, please feel free to explain yourself.
Can the president ask that the investigation of a murder be carried on by
the marines in all cases, for example?
>> >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
>> >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
>> >>
>> >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
>> >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
>> >> your house without permission, is it not?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> Above, you said the governor can give permission for them to become
>> a law enforcement force. Not that they can enter your house without
>> permission.
>
>is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
>WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
I don't know. I am not a gun grabber. You are the one who is grabbing
a gun and getting a hardon about it.
>a) no
>B) YES!
I don't know. Is it a wet dream of yours?
>> >Also, if the gun-phobes' wet-dream of CONFISCATION is to implemented,
>> >how would it be done without entering citizens' homes?
>>
>> Right now, possession of certain kinds of pronography is forbidden,
>> and if found it is to be confiscated. Guns are not any different.
>
>is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
>WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
Once more, Aaron. If you want to argue with the voices in your head,
you can do that using a puppet teather, and there is no need to do
it over usenet.
>a) no
>B) YES!
No or yes what?
>> >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
>> >
>> >The gun-phobes' wet-dream is a law that requires no search warrant.
>>
>> Stop arguing with the voices in your head. You said that if a
>> gun banning law is passed, you would invade another person`s
>> house. That would be illegal, unless certain OTHER laws are
>> passed. You could just as well say that you will blow his
>> brains with a bazooka, because in your mind a law will be
>> passed allowing you to shoot people with one.
>
>is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
>WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
>
>a) no
>B) YES!
Perhaps you feel repeating yourself makes you look less insane. Let me
warn you that is not the case.
>> >> >> >> Oh, you're a SOLDIER! So fucking what? Plenty of us have been soldiers,
>> >> >> >> and I doubt that many have been as much of a sad sack as you. Soldiers
>> >> >> >> are like any other population - there are some great ones, and there are
>> >> >> >> some losers - like YOU.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I was decorated 9 times in my first 3 years of service.
>> >> >> >what does that tell you
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You own some little ribbons you like to flaunt when you're among
>> >> >> other slaves of the system? I find that ritualistic behaviour
>> >> >> akin to baboon's exposure of erect penises as sign of authority.
>> >> >
>> >> >Commendation for work well done.
>> >>
>> >> No, the baboons don't work.
>> >
>> >You sound exceedingly jealous.
>>
>> Of you? Man, if I were jealous of you, I would go to Chicago with
>> the intent to jump off the Sears tower.
>
>Now's your chance.
Only if I were jealous of you. Which would be such a display of poor
taste I would collapse into antimatter.
>> >Why is that, coward...
>>
>> Coward? I say that blind retaliation is the chicken's path.
>> Dare live peacefully, if you have the balls to do it.
>
>Why should I STUPIDLY attempt to live peacefully with those who REFUSE to be peaceful.
Well, obviously you don't dare do it. Are you a christian by chance?
>If they want war, then I will give them war like they have never imagined
The basis of your madness, obviously. Perhaps you:
a) Lack imagination
b) Feel a need to threaten strangers
c) Have a severe inferiority complex, that you hide by posing over usenet
d) Were kicked too often in 3rd grade
>Hope that helps.
Oh, it does, Aaron. It's always nice to show casual readers what kind
of nutcase you are.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:19:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Then it should be quite easy for you to provide two links, one the pinout of
> the PA-RISC and one the pinout of the Itanium to show they are the same,
> right?
Not that it matters, since the HP workstations use CPU modules (I think), but
HP says that the IA-64 CPUs will be swappable with the current PA-RISC modules
in some (a few/many/all? not sure) HP workstations out there now.
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
Favorite error message: "Out of paper on drive D:" This was produced by a
timeout error on a slow WORM drive and a defective AT/IO card.
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:19:29 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS \\ PL wrote:
> > You can't walk in to any store and buy a
> > piece of hardware and assume it will work with your OS.
>
> As long as it says "For Windows xxxx" on the box <grin>.
> I bought a printer (HP 820Cse) that said "For Windows"
> on it. How was I to know it didn't mean "Windows NT"???!!
Hmmm...No driver for NT huh?
Try here:
http://www.hp.com/cposupport/printers/software/dj380en.exe.html
File date is 020298
That's > 3 years ago. When did you purchase the printer?
------------------------------
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: 23 May 2001 20:22:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:08:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> David L. Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
>> >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
>> >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
>> >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
>> >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
>> >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
>> >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
>> >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
>> >> >
>> >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
>> >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
>> >>
>> >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
>> >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
>> >> illegal.
>> >>
>> >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
>> >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
>> >>
>> >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
>> >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
>> >> your house without permission, is it not?
>> >
>> >%%%% They did at Waco.
>>
>> Those were not soldiers, they were federal law enforcement agencies.
>> And they did have permission, in the form of a search warrant.
>
>1. They did NOT have the warrant with them
Ok.
>2. The warrant was void, because it was obtained under false pretenses.
Do you feel an urge to fill a truck with fertilizer?
>> >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
>> >
>> >%%%% They didn't at Waco.
>> >
>>
>> And having guns did them a whole lot of good, to those Davidians,
>> didn't it?
>
>Are you saying that if confronted with a totalitarian regime, one
>should just submit? Go find a holocaust survivor to clue you into reality.
Are you saying you are a volunteer soldier for a totalitarian regime?
I *lived* under a totalitarian regime, kid, and it seems you are
a collaborator, since you call the regime you are defending totalitarian.
And would I be stupid enough to declare war on the FBI and the ATF while
my kids are locked with me? No.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: 23 May 2001 20:24:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:09:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:47:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > <> Also, using myself as an
>> >> > <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
>> >> >
>> >> > But you do have a choice in your behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1Peter 5:7
>> >>
>> >> I assume you say this from a religious perspective. In that case,
>> >> if you are a literalist, his behaviour doesn't matter all that
>> >> much, since already the desire is a sin.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I desire to have $1,000,000,000
>>
>> Actually, that is pretty much a sin. It is called greed, Aaron.
>>
>> >Nonetheless, that wouldn't justify me robbing banks now, would it.
>>
>> Of course not.
>
>Thank you for agreeing with my point.
What point?
>Desires != justification.
And smart != Kulkis. And in both cases, I had never said the opposite.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leonard Fehskens)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:27:43 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 08:32:41 -0600, Jerry Coffin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
>I'm not sure what I was thinking there -- you talked about the PDP-
>10, and I replied about the PDP-8. In any case, I'm pretty sure the
>PDP-10 didn't predate the PDP-8, so the same basic idea applies...
No, but the PDP-6, which essentially defined the -10's architecture,
may have. I don't know if the LDB, DPB, ILDB, IDPB and IBP instructions
were supported by the -6 or were new on the -10.
Since many alphanumeric applications could get by with 50 characters
(26 single case alphabetics, 10 numerics, and 14 punctuation and
"carriage control" characters), "radix50" was a common encoding on the
early PDP machines.
len.
a common encoding scheme
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:51:45 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9eeplc$rc4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Besides apart from compatibility reasons what percentage of MS users
> > would use the ADVANCED features of Office? I believe business would take
> advantage
> > of some of these components however the *AVERAGE* user, we are so fond
> > of talking about, would hardly use any of the advanced functionality of
> > WORD, EXCEL let alone MS Access, Powerpoint and Project Manager.
>
> Compatability? I can get a WordViewer for free, and it will let me cut &
> paste to any half-way decent word proccessor.
> Certainly to older versions of Word.
> I don't need to buy new versions for that.
>
I can get a package for linux that not only views Word and Powerpoint files
but can also edit them and re-save them in Word and Powerpoint compatible
file formats - Staroffice, Openoffice or Koffice can do this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:41:01 GMT
On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:19:29 GMT, "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS \\ PL wrote:
>
>> > You can't walk in to any store and buy a
>> > piece of hardware and assume it will work with your OS.
>>
>> As long as it says "For Windows xxxx" on the box <grin>.
>> I bought a printer (HP 820Cse) that said "For Windows"
>> on it. How was I to know it didn't mean "Windows NT"???!!
>
>Hmmm...No driver for NT huh?
>
>Try here:
>http://www.hp.com/cposupport/printers/software/dj380en.exe.html
>
>File date is 020298
>That's > 3 years ago. When did you purchase the printer?
I found it in 5 seconds with Google with "820Cse".
Funny thing about these Linvocates, for all of the reading they have
to do to install and maintain Linux, they always seem to panic when a
Windows install is in their future.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation...
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:45:15 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:06:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:46:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
> >> >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
> >> >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
> >> >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
> >> >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
> >> >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
> >> >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
> >> >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
> >> >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
> >> >>
> >> >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
> >> >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
> >> >> illegal.
> >> >
> >> >Absolutely not.
> >> >
> >> >Read the Posse Commitatus Act. It **CLEARLY** states that the Army can be used
> >> >to do law enforcement with the permission of the governor of the state(s) in
> >> >question.
> >>
> >> With permission.
> >>
> >> > Remember all the times the Army was used in the 1950's and 60's.
> >>
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >> >The MARINES can be sent into any state WITHOUT the permission of the Governor.
> >>
> >> And they will still not be a law enforcement agency.
> >
> >Bzzzzzzt! Wrong.
> >They can do anything the President orders them to do, within the limits
> >of the Constitution.
>
> If the law says a presidential order is enough to enter a person's house,
> the presidential order *is* permission to enter such a house.
>
> Yet, the marines and the army are not a law enforcement agency. If you say
> they are, please feel free to explain yourself.
>
> Can the president ask that the investigation of a murder be carried on by
> the marines in all cases, for example?
>
> >> >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
> >> >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
> >> >>
> >> >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
> >> >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
> >> >> your house without permission, is it not?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> Above, you said the governor can give permission for them to become
> >> a law enforcement force. Not that they can enter your house without
> >> permission.
> >
> >is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
> >WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
>
> I don't know. I am not a gun grabber. You are the one who is grabbing
> a gun and getting a hardon about it.
>
> >a) no
> >B) YES!
>
> I don't know. Is it a wet dream of yours?
>
> >> >Also, if the gun-phobes' wet-dream of CONFISCATION is to implemented,
> >> >how would it be done without entering citizens' homes?
> >>
> >> Right now, possession of certain kinds of pronography is forbidden,
> >> and if found it is to be confiscated. Guns are not any different.
> >
> >is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
> >WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
>
> Once more, Aaron. If you want to argue with the voices in your head,
> you can do that using a puppet teather, and there is no need to do
> it over usenet.
>
> >a) no
> >B) YES!
>
> No or yes what?
Thank you for demonstrating that you can't even follow the conversation.
Game
set
match
you lose.
>
> >> >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
> >> >
> >> >The gun-phobes' wet-dream is a law that requires no search warrant.
> >>
> >> Stop arguing with the voices in your head. You said that if a
> >> gun banning law is passed, you would invade another person`s
> >> house. That would be illegal, unless certain OTHER laws are
> >> passed. You could just as well say that you will blow his
> >> brains with a bazooka, because in your mind a law will be
> >> passed allowing you to shoot people with one.
> >
> >is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
> >WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
> >
> >a) no
> >B) YES!
>
> Perhaps you feel repeating yourself makes you look less insane. Let me
> warn you that is not the case.
>
> >> >> >> >> Oh, you're a SOLDIER! So fucking what? Plenty of us have been soldiers,
> >> >> >> >> and I doubt that many have been as much of a sad sack as you. Soldiers
> >> >> >> >> are like any other population - there are some great ones, and there are
> >> >> >> >> some losers - like YOU.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I was decorated 9 times in my first 3 years of service.
> >> >> >> >what does that tell you
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You own some little ribbons you like to flaunt when you're among
> >> >> >> other slaves of the system? I find that ritualistic behaviour
> >> >> >> akin to baboon's exposure of erect penises as sign of authority.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Commendation for work well done.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, the baboons don't work.
> >> >
> >> >You sound exceedingly jealous.
> >>
> >> Of you? Man, if I were jealous of you, I would go to Chicago with
> >> the intent to jump off the Sears tower.
> >
> >Now's your chance.
>
> Only if I were jealous of you. Which would be such a display of poor
> taste I would collapse into antimatter.
>
> >> >Why is that, coward...
> >>
> >> Coward? I say that blind retaliation is the chicken's path.
> >> Dare live peacefully, if you have the balls to do it.
> >
> >Why should I STUPIDLY attempt to live peacefully with those who REFUSE to be
>peaceful.
>
> Well, obviously you don't dare do it. Are you a christian by chance?
>
> >If they want war, then I will give them war like they have never imagined
>
> The basis of your madness, obviously. Perhaps you:
>
> a) Lack imagination
> b) Feel a need to threaten strangers
> c) Have a severe inferiority complex, that you hide by posing over usenet
> d) Were kicked too often in 3rd grade
>
> >Hope that helps.
>
> Oh, it does, Aaron. It's always nice to show casual readers what kind
> of nutcase you are.
>
> --
> 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
******************************
