Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judging by a quick Google, "how excitement" is an Australianism.
> (Actually, I've never heard it before but it seems closely related to
> the more common "how embarassment." The top few Google hits on that are
> from New Zealand, followed by some Austral
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone
> should run a mail spool on a dial-up.
1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
claim to be from my dropbear address
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't kid yourself, he might not be a new kid on the block. For all we
> know, he might be Eray in disguise... His obfuscated identity is obviously
> being done on purpose. For which purpose, well, only he knows for sure.
He has let an id
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the point is, a DPL as a single person, may have "confidential" meetings
> with himself, and nobody bothers. But when it's a group of person ...
> whoa ... that's now a big deal !
Bdale publically claimed at LCA that he has been asked for and provided
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Neil McGovern
> >
> >He maintains drivel.
> >
Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No pun intended, I'm sure, but it made me laugh :-)
He'll fit in perfectly!
--
Sam "Eddie" Couter | mailto:[EMA
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, quite a lot actually - we can then ask people to feed a floopy or
> CD containing the vendor-supplied firmware. Do keep up...
A floopy?
Maybe I'm failing to keep up (I've obviously taken a long time to get to
reading this message), but why can't th
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> right. even after 6 days you can't come up with any answer to over 70 lines
> of argument in that message, so you retreat to the position of a coward and a
> cretin - delete all but one flippant throw-away line and make a stupid
> ad-hominem attack based
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Indeed. But not everyone agrees with your opinion that invariant sections
> are trivialities.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, that just makes them wrong. and if they're obsessive about it, zealots.
So your opin
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Why should firmware go to non-free, it's not evaluated on the CPU
> >that runs Debian.
>
> Because the policy revisionists changed the DFSG to make it apply to
> data as well.
Man, talk about inflammatory. I know I shouldn't
9 matches
Mail list logo
