Linux-Advocacy Digest #749, Volume #34 Thu, 24 May 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("~¿~")
A Newbie Linux User Asks: (WJP)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Dan Pidcock)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Dan Pidcock)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Mark Fergerson)
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (Roberto Alsina)
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (Steve Chaney)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Vinko Vrsalovic)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:06:29 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>opinions. In this thread, there seems to be three sorts of people. There
>>are those of us who have a reasonable understanding of physics (I guess
>>there are plenty in sci.physics with a much better than "reasonable"
>>understanding) who know the basics, and, far more importantly, know the
>>limits of our own understanding and that of science. Then there are those
>>who have some basic ideas, and have read lots more that they don't
actually
>>understand, but regurgitate parts of this without being able to fit it
into
>>a cohesive whole. And thirdly, there are those who are spouting such
drivel
>>that they cannot even write legible sentences.
>
>The third group is a mirage caused by your inability to understand
>someone else's reason. This leaves us with two groups; one who is sure
>they know the answers because they learned them in school, and one who
>is unsure if the answers they learned in school are worth anything more
>than the dogma of buddhism in terms of "actually" explaining the world.
>
>The first group gets incensed by free inquiry, and seeks to berate
>"regular people" who even try to make sense without having math as the
>basis of their teleology (an explanation 'why' something is as it is).
>They tell people they are using words WRONG, rather than trying to
>figure out how the mistake could be considered reasonable, and further
>trying to figure out how it *makes perfect sense and is correct*, being
>the most accurate, consistent, and practical word the speaker knew at
>the time.
>
>Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to correct their words,
>not "prove them wrong". NOTHING can be proven by words alone (outside
>of a courtroom); anything else requires MATH to merit any consideration
>of "proof", and therefore have any ability to be "wrong", rather than
>merely mistaken.
>
>>Remember the old saying, T. Max - a closed mouth gathers no foot.
>
>I have something of a foot fetish, I'm afraid.
>
>So far as I can tell, GreyCloud is mistaken about several things, but he
>isn't "wrong" at all in explaining his considerations, and even his
>conclusions. Just as I am not 'wrong' (or even, to my mind, mistaken at
>all) in describing the 'sum-over-paths' mechanism as still being a valid
>lingual translation of *current* physics theory, even though it has been
>abandoned as a *mathematical* mechanism within physics itself.
>
>Admittedly, there is a fine line between what constitutes free inquiry
>and what constitutes pseudo-science. Presuming you can tell the
>difference a priori is just begging the question, though. If you claim
>you are on the side of the scientists, you must therefore reject it as a
>logical fallacy. Only the pseudo-scientist would insist that no
>statements contradictory to theory will be considered.
>
I think you are too hung up on the word "wrong". I am getting the
impression (and do correct me if I am /mistaken/) that you are interpreting
"wrong" in the sense of "morally wrong", or "does not have the right to".
In that sense, it is not "wrong" for anyone to post ideas about scientific
theories even if they are totally incorrect. But unfortunately for you,
Max, everyone else uses the word "wrong" to mean "incorrect" in most
circumstances. Both you and everyone else are going to get a lot more (more
information, anyway, but probably less words) out of these discussions when
you use language like everyone else. You may feel you are having to lower
yourself to a lowest common denominator, but sometimes that's just the way
life is.
As for my mission, I have been having a go at that in other posts - proving
you and GreyCloud "incorrect", if you will.
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:24:15 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ei5rg$hm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 14 to 16 MB's of memory? You have one of the most F'd up Office
> > configurations imaginable, or your normal.dot is 10MB's strong. No, I
> doubt
> > that as I don't think you can code with VBA.
> > Winword, the executable name for Word, is running on right now on this
pc.
> > MS Outlook Express, which you love to hate but love to use, as you did
to
> > make this post,
>
> Get a life "~¿~" , or better know as, Mr "I'm too chicken to use my real
> name".
I love how you clipped out the relevant part of my post -- the part about
your assertions of gross memory usage of the MS product vs. the other word
processors. Typical ad hominem low brow retort.
My posts here average one a day. Your average is ???? Who is in need of this
'life' you speak of?
Trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have once again
squarely driven your foot in your mouth by making claims you can't back up
with facts is only surpassed by the way you turn to juvenile attacks when
caught doing so. Besides, your the type of guy that I have zero fear of.
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:08:36 -0500
I have relatives in another state that use AOL software exclusively for
their internet connection. This appears to me to be a stumbling block
for me to completely get rid of Windows from my PC's. (Those relatives
have no intention of switching to Linux or getting away from "AOL
Hell"). I am vaguely familiar with VMWare and wine, however, those
programs still require Windows to be installed ( unless I misunderstand
the way these programs are "set up"). Heck, if I have to have Windows
installed to run either one of those, I might as well continue using the
AOL software "within" Windows. Does anyone know if there is Linux-based
software which can be used to provide interface with AOL's software?
Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
You may be wondering why I asked these questions in a Linux advocacy
news group. The reason is thusly: I agree that most Linux
distributions provide numerous applications in their "bundles", however,
unless there are program capabilities included to cover situations such
as described above, the requirement for Windows installs will continue -
regardless of what a person, such as myself, would prefer to install. In
other words: I cannot "safely" tell my wife that she can no longer talk
on-line with her sister just because I want to be "Windows free".
Regards,
Bill Powell
USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:50:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> Device drivers on Windows are written in C++ and make use of COM. Which
> >> one is more technologically advanced?
> Which one works better ?
Define 'works better'. The Windows one offers more features (3D sound
for example), S/PDIF support etc.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pidcock)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:20:25 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:30:26 GMT, "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>method=mainQuery&ATNMYFIELD_Headline=&db0=English&xoptions=sortboth&numresu
>l
>> >ts
>> >> =1000&BATCHHITS=25&querythreshold=50&query=homophobic
>> >>
>> >> In the UK you can't get much more mainstream than the BBC.
>> >
>> >Again, when I was in The Netherlands I watched BBC and don't remember
>> >hearing it. By the way,
>> >isn't BBC an organ of the Liberal Government?
>>
>> The BBC is independant of the government, always has been, whether under
>> liberal or conservative governments. You can guarantee the opposition
>parties
>> would kick up a big stink if it were any other way. It's there as a public
>> service broadcaster and as such, belongs to the people.
>
>Its funded by the government but independent of the government?
>Interesting.
It is mostly funded by the license fee, which is paid by people who
own TVs - not the government.
ITV uses the tern homophobe just as much as BBC so your argument is
bollocks.
Dan
remove .hatespam to reply
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pidcock)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:20:25 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:26:53 GMT, "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >Again, when I was in The Netherlands I watched BBC and don't remember
>> >hearing it. By the way,
>> >isn't BBC an organ of the Liberal Government?
>>
>> The BBC is independant of the government, and has existed under liberal
>and
>> conservative governments alike.
>
>When did teh BBC become independent of the Government?
>
>The following is from the BBC site:
>
>BBC Financing:
>
>The BBC relies on two main sources for its funding, the television receiving
>licence fee, and the Grant-in-Aid for the BBC World Service.
>
>The licence fee has been in operation since the BBC was formed and has been
>endorsed by successive Governments since 1922. The fee is paid by people
>wishing to receive television signals and the fee is set by the Government.
>
>Clause 12 of the Licence and Agreement forbids the BBC to obtain revenue by
>the broadcasting of advertisements or from commercial sponsorship of
>programmes, thus there are no advertisements at all on the BBC. Radio or
>television.
>
>"No we don't show commercials whatsoever. We are prohibited by our Charter
>and the Licence Agreement which is linked to the Charter, from showing any
>advertisements or anything like that. It's this mechanism which guarantees
>our independence you see" (Moss, Personal Interview, June 1991).
>
>Sounds like its not indepent of the government unless something has changed.
Don't know how you got that impression from the quoted text.
Endorsing something does not mean you are in control of it.
>Also, the current government is Liberal so the current BBC seems to be an
>organ of the Liberal Government.
Current government being liberal - why do you say that?
Dan
remove .hatespam to reply
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:29:04 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 11:42:03 +0200, "David Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:40:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>>Ebert) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>THEY HAVE INTELLIMOUSE!!!
>>>
>>>OH LORDY LORDY LORDY!!! WE DOOMED NOW!
>>
>>Yep...
>>
>>And you are stuck with an OS that supports less than half of it's
>>features....
>>
>>Typical Linsux
>>
>
>
>The features of my Intellimouse are a ball, three buttons and a wheel.
>Mandrake supports all of these - without needing to download or install
>extra drivers. What other features does your Intellimouse have?
Some examples: Viewing a webpage I can click on the wheel and then
scroll the page in extremely fine increments (not a line at a time
like Mandrake does) up down / left or right.
In applications that have multiple windows within a window on the
screen (like Agent for example), if I move the mouse over the other
window I can scroll immediately without having to click the button
first.
I know Linux supports the active Window focus but you still have to
click to make the wheel work.
I can also assign commands to the wheel or buttons EASILY.
>
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: Mark Fergerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:42:02 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Gregory L. Hansen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 19:18:42
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
> >>
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> >>> Radio waves are not light!
> >
> >It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
>
> "Same as" means it is in the same category as light, not that it is
> light. Yes, you are correct that they are both in the category 'emr'.
This got crossposted to sci.physics which is where I'm posting from,
so what I write here is from that perspective.
(Note that I used to think Linux had something to do with expensive
watches, and I still don't get the significance of the name "Windows".
Them little boxes on my screen don't look like no damn windows to me.)
Light is radio waves are gamma rays. They're all spin-1 bosons that
carry exclusively the EM force.
Claiming that "light" is exclusively the part of the EM spectrum
that human eyes respond to is a reasonable usage in Common Street
English, but in sci.physics it's abuse of jargon.
I OTOH do not use terms like "source code" (probably very comon
jargon in the other two groups) in _any_ context because I wouldn't
know what the hell I was talking about.
> >>> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> >>> 88%.
> >
> >Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
>
> c
What wavelength(s)? In what medium? If he thinks it was any part of
the usual broadcast bands in air, I'll offer a categorical "bullshit"
right now. Otherwise I want a citation to examine. Something at an
official National Bureau of Standards website will do nicely.
Speaking of citations, if he was right, speed radar would be a very
much iffier thing than it already is.
> >>> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
That's just plain deliberate ignorance.
> >Sure it has. _Physics Letters_ (12), 260, for one.
>
> Not all theoretical proofs of lights velocity in a vacuum would
> necessarily qualify as 'measurement', perhaps.
_No_ theoretical proof of _anything_ qualifies as measurement.
Measurement always means instruments and physical events.
> >>> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
> >>> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
> >>> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
> >
> >No, it hasn't. Laser light bounced from retroreflectors on the Moon takes
> >a number of seconds to make a round trip. And much of that trip is in a
> >good vacuum.
>
> Yet some of it is in air, as GreyCloud is pointing out. Indeed, all
> direct experimental evidence of the speed of light in a vacuum is
> similarly burdened, according to him. I think it is unlikely, myself,
> but possible.
Irrelevant. The round-trip time is calculated including the velocity
differentials for air and vacuum. Experiment matches calculations.
What else is there to say?
> >>> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
> >>> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
> >>> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
> >>> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
> >
> >I don't know what kind of signal he's talking about, or what strength.
>
> Ergo, you should either decline to comment, or add only information
> which would be true, regardless of which or what.
Well, maybe you'd consider posting more of what he originally said
(that didn't get crossposted) so we can get some faint inkling of what
he meant. Otherwise we might as well treat it as blank.
> >It's no mystery that we can see other stars when you consider their
> >output, the inverse square law, and Earthly optics. But maybe that's not
> >the signal he's talking about.
>
> Calling it a 'signal' at all, what he is talking about, is a mistake, I
> think, if only because it spoils the context.
>
> >>> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> >>> gravitational disturbances.
> >
> >Maybe this makes more sense in context.
>
> It seems to make sense in almost any context, as far as I can see. I
> still don't quite understand why he thinks this 'speed of light in a
> vacuum' deal has anything to do with SETI, though, or why either has to
> do with his contention, here, that we shouldn't be able to see the other
> side of a far-away galaxy as clearly as we do in either emr spectrum,
> light or radio.
Oh, hell, I'll speculate on his meaning too. If you're right and
he's referring to a SETI signal from other galaxies (million LY is
well outside ours), well, any BEM's out there would need to use a
rather large, rather overpowered transmitter for us to get as clear a
signal as we do from, say, a star at that range for the obvious reason
that a star is a multi-Terawatt transmitter in the visible range and
some aren't even visible to the naked eye. Radiotelescopes are
enormously more senstiive, but unless you assume the BEM's are
modulating stars, we may never hear their radio emissions (if any). If
they _are_ modulating stars for use as radio transmitters, I don't
think we ought to let them know we're here in case they decide to come
here and use our Sun to "phone home".
Stars aren't directional though; you can cram the entire output of
an ordinary radio transmitter into a very narrow beam with the
appropriate antenna. That makes your source look a lot brigher than an
isotropic source with the same radiated power. We can get coherent
visible EM images of stars from truly ridiculous distances despite his
statement that "Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of
unseen gravitational disturbances", why shouldn't we be able to get a
coherent radio EM image of a transmitter some BEM's are trying to talk
to us with? The propagation properties of vacuum aren't different for
different parts of the spectrum.
> And how does he think that these could be predicated on his work with
> the DoD? These are fascinating questions. But I doubt they'll be
> productively explored in any real context in this cross-posted thread.
??? Who the hell knows? Was there any more related information in
the part of this thread that didn't get crossposted?
Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: 24 May 2001 13:43:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:37:16 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Chaney wrote:
>>
>> Errunt R Kookla eeped:
>>
>> >No need to go to such expense, seeing how you promptly destroyed yourself.
>>
>> Welch!
>
>As I said...why should I go to the trouble of convening a court
>to destroy you....
>
>when you fucking self destructed in less than 10 minutes.
So, when you say "say that again and I'll see you in court", you
actually mean "say that again and I will pretend you didn't"?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:00:40 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:37:16 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Steve Chaney wrote:
>>
>> Errunt R Kookla eeped:
>>
>> >No need to go to such expense, seeing how you promptly destroyed yourself.
>>
>> Welch!
>
>As I said...why should I go to the trouble of convening a court
>to destroy you....
Got delusion?
Welchboy.
-- Steve
===============================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the "-" to email me)
This site is just TOO COOL for a counter! http://www.self-acceptance.org
"As long as an enemy is judged solely by his appearance, his victory is assured." -
Outer Limits
STOP SMOKING NOW!!! ASK ME HOW!!! http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
The alt.bonehead.jim-dutton FAQ @ http://www.best.com/~paladin/jjd-faq.txt
"anybody that takes usenet to seriously deserves to be beaten to death." - Turtoni
"Let 'em eat eep" - Lady Veteran
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 24 May 2001 14:00:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Gregory L. Hansen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 19:18:42
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
>>>
>>>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Radio waves are not light!
>>
>>It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
>
>"Same as" means it is in the same category as light, not that it is
>light. Yes, you are correct that they are both in the category 'emr'.
Do we want to include infrared? Far infrared? Microwaves? There's no
line of demarcation. Radio waves and visible light are the same thing,
their behavior is described well by Maxwell's equations.
>
>>>> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
>>>> 88%.
>>
>>Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
>
>c
I'm sure this is right, but it doesn't mean much to me without knowing how
the measurement was made, and what it has to do with the argument. I'm
posting from sci.physics and didn't see the beginning of the discussion,
just the snippet I've quoted and a request for comment. But I'll bet it
wasn't 88% of c in unobstructed air.
>
>>>> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>>
>>Sure it has. _Physics Letters_ (12), 260, for one.
>
>Not all theoretical proofs of lights velocity in a vacuum would
>necessarily qualify as 'measurement', perhaps.
No theoretical proof would qualify as a measurement. This is not a
theoretical proof, it's an experiment conducted at an accelerator
facility.
>
>>>> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
>>>> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
>>>> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
>>
>>No, it hasn't. Laser light bounced from retroreflectors on the Moon takes
>>a number of seconds to make a round trip. And much of that trip is in a
>>good vacuum.
>
>Yet some of it is in air, as GreyCloud is pointing out. Indeed, all
>direct experimental evidence of the speed of light in a vacuum is
>similarly burdened, according to him. I think it is unlikely, myself,
>but possible.
I haven't researched speed of light measurements much, but I can't imagine
any experimentor measuring the speed of light in air and calling it the
speed of light in vacuum. But they're very close. And the dependence on
pressure is measured easily enough that I did it in a freshman physics
lab.
>
>>>> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
>>>> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
>>>> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
>>>> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
>>
>>I don't know what kind of signal he's talking about, or what strength.
>
>Ergo, you should either decline to comment, or add only information
>which would be true, regardless of which or what.
Don't be silly!
>
>>It's no mystery that we can see other stars when you consider their
>>output, the inverse square law, and Earthly optics. But maybe that's not
>>the signal he's talking about.
>
>Calling it a 'signal' at all, what he is talking about, is a mistake, I
>think, if only because it spoils the context.
What is the context?
>
>>>> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
>>>> gravitational disturbances.
>>
>>Maybe this makes more sense in context.
>
>It seems to make sense in almost any context, as far as I can see. I
To me, it's more of a non-sequitor in the sense it's true, I can agree
with it, but it's the sort of statement that probably doesn't have
anything to do with anything.
>still don't quite understand why he thinks this 'speed of light in a
>vacuum' deal has anything to do with SETI, though, or why either has to
>do with his contention, here, that we shouldn't be able to see the other
>side of a far-away galaxy as clearly as we do in either emr spectrum,
>light or radio.
I think we usually "see" distant galaxies more clearly in radio
frequencies, even if we don't get the same resolution. Radio waves are
not obscured as easily by dust clouds. But if it's a distant galaxy, the
BEMs would have to have a pretty strong transmitter if we're going to
pick up on it.
>
>And how does he think that these could be predicated on his work with
>the DoD? These are fascinating questions. But I doubt they'll be
>productively explored in any real context in this cross-posted thread.
>
>Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
DoD, eh? Fascinating, indeed.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
------------------------------
From: Vinko Vrsalovic <[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!
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:13:10 +0000 (UTC)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snap]
> Apparently, you are in error, you slimey dishonest piece of shit.
[snap]
> Reason. It smacks of reason, not childish word games such as you play,
> you pathetic fool.
[snip]
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
I can see your words accurately follow the ones in your signature...
--
V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Computers don't actually think.
You just think they think.
(We think.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
