Linux-Advocacy Digest #195, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Jeff Glatt)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Bruce
Malmat")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:59:12 GMT
Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Where did that come from, Marty?
The previous attribution in this thread.
> >> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> > The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
> >>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
> > I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>
> You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
I pointed to your lack of culture. Was that not explanation enough?
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
> >>> You never asked.
>
> >> Incorrect, given that I've been asking all along, but you've relied
> >> on illogical circular responses.
>
> > You didn't ask the first time it was used.
>
> Incorrect; see ninety eight lines (including blank lines) below, Marty.
Why bother, when we can unroll it back to the original articles:
http://x64.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=669027990
Note my first usage of "Fozzy". Note how you had not questioned its origin in
your reply.
> >>>>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >>>> You were just being evasive, Marty.
>
> >>> Did you expect me to read your mind?
>
> >> Unnecessary, Marty.
>
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> On the basis that I wrote my question, Marty,
Incorrect. You made a statement. You had not posed a question.
> thus it was unnecessary for you to read my mind.
How can I answer a question that you haven't asked without reading your mind?
> >>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>>>>>> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>
> >>>>>> Typical evasion.
>
> >>>>> On your part.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Classic pontification.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Pointing out your pontification is not pontification, Dave.
>
> Without substantiating evidence for a pontification, your "pointing
> out" is indeed a pontification, Marty.
The evidence of your pontification is what I replied to, Dave.
> >>>>> I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
> >>>>> that you meant.
>
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I wasn't clear, Marty,
> >>>> using it as an excuse to continue your evasiveness.
>
> >>> I see you're expecting me to read your mind again.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Then how do you expect me to interpret your made-up words?
>
> What alleged "made-up" words, Marty?
"whee", Dave.
> >>> Why not just correct your error and remove the ambiguity?
>
> >> What alleged error, Marty?
>
> > DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> Where is the alleged ambiguity, Marty?
"whee", Dave.
> >>> How ironic, coming from someone complaining about alleged
> >>> "evasiveness".
>
> >> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
>
> > Witness your evasiveness.
>
> What alleged evasiveness, Marty?
Witness the fact that you have not clarified what you meant by "whee".
> >>>>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >>>>>>>> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>
> >>>>>> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
>
> >>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I identified your consistent lack of an
> >>>> explanation.
>
> >>> That doesn't say anything good about your reading comprehension.
>
> >> It doesn't say anything bad about it, Marty.
>
> > On the contrary.
>
> On what do you base your contrariness, Marty?
On the basis of the incorrect nature of your statement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>>>>>> Tyopical pontification.
>
> >>>>>>> What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>
> >>>>>> Typical evasion.
>
> >>>>> On your part.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Classic pontification.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Where is the alleged irony?
>
> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
And where would that be? How ironic that you speak of pontification.
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>
> >> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>
> > How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>
> What alleged "made-up" word, Marty?
"tyopical", Dave.
> And why are you now using the singular, but above you used the plural:
Because there was only one left after pointing out the other.
> >>>>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>
> >>>>>>>>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>
> >>>>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> See above.
>
> >>>>>> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
>
> >>>>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> >>>> Yes, which is why I know there isn't an answer above, Marty.
>
> >>> Obviously not, considering the answer above.
>
> >> What alleged answer, Marty?
>
> > The one above, Dave.
>
> Where above, allegedly, Marty?
On a line previous to the one on which I first mentioned "above".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because I would like that.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>
> >>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>> Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>
> >>>> Why?
>
> >>> Because I would find it enjoyable.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Because it would be something that I would like.
>
> Why?
Because I would enjoy that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Aren't you sure?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>
> >>>>>>>>> Not surprising.
>
> >>>>>>>> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> What alleged "inconsistency"?
>
> >>>>>> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
>
> >>>>> You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Even more classic pontification.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Where is the irony?
>
> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
How ironic.
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to note my consistent use of
> >>>>>>> the attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>>>> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
> >>>>>> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> >>>>> I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument.
> >>>>> No surprise there.
>
> >>>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
> >>>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>
> >>> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
> >>> argument. No surprise there.
>
> >> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
> >> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>
> >I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
> >argument. No surprise there.
Note: no response.
> >>>>>>>>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
> >>>>>>>>> this thread.
>
> >>>>>>>> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
> >>>>>>> Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>
> >>>>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>
> >>>>> Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider
> >>>>> "this thread".
>
> >>>> Considering "this thread" to be "this thread" is classic illogical
> >>>> circular reasoning, Marty.
>
> >>> That depends on your definition of the first "this thread".
>
> >> No it doesn't, Marty.
>
> > Classic pontification.
>
> How ironic.
Where is the irony, Dave?
> >>>>> It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
> >>>>> precisely the ones to which I was referring.
>
> >>>> All threads have a finite number of postings, Marty, but they don't all
> >>>> have the same subject line.
>
> >>> Of what relevance is this remark?
>
> >> The same as yours, Marty.
>
> > Even more pontification.
>
> How ironic.
Where is the irony, Dave?
> >>>>> There's nothing illogical about being self-referential when we are
> >>>>> still contributing to what I consider "this thread".
>
> >>>> There is something illogical about using circular reasoning, Marty.
>
> >>> Glad I haven't done such a thing.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Prove that I'm not glad, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary, given that you have done such a thing, Marty.
Classic pontification. Prove that I have "done such a thing" as "not be
glad".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:03:16 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
>> >>>>>>>>>>following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>> >>>>>>>>>I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>> >>>>>>>> Why?
>> >>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>> >>>>>> Why?
>> >>>>> Because I would like that.
>> >>>> Why?
>> >>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>> >> Why?
>> > Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>> Why?
If there is anyone who isn't yet convinced that Tholen is the
intellectual equivalent of a kindergarten student, then the above
exchange should provide conclusive proof. Visit any kindergarten
classroom and eavesdrop upon an adult having a conversation with a 5
year old and you'll see the kid playing Tholen's part with equal
"finesse"
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:25:00 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> WickedDyno wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > WickedDyno wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > On 09/18/2000 at 05:54 AM,
> > > > > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > See your showing your bias. Have I mentioned the ozone hole
> > > > > > >> > > once? You
> > > > > > >> > > mentioned Copernicus being persecuted and yet you'd do the
> > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > people looking for answers as to what is happening with out
> > > > > > >> > > world
> > > > > > >> > > today.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Ah, but Copernicus PROVED his theory by verifiable, repeatable
> > > > > > >> > measurements which eliminated all other possibilities.
> > > > > > >> > Einstein's
> > > > > > >> > theories
> > > > > > >> > have been proven by repeatable experiments which preclude any
> > > > > > >> > alternate
> > > > > > >> > possibilities.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > But until the econuts PROVE their theories about CFC's, they
> > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > junk
> > > > > > >> > scientists and not to be trusted. And until the theories are
> > > > > > >> > PROVEN, I
> > > > > > >> > refuse to sanction actions based thereupon.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Oh man this is rich. So unitl it is verifiable you will call it
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> lie and not support looking
> > > > > > >> into it? You would've been right their lynching Copernicus.
> > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > >> an asshole.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >What is the concentration of CFC's in the upper atmosphere, oh
> > > > > > >ignorant
> > > > > > >freshman.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last reading I saw was 3.6ppb billion, already referenced it.
> > > > > > Plantlife
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words...negligible.
> > > >
> > > > Because you say so?
> > >
> > > 3.6 ppb = 0.00036 %
> > >
> > > Please explain how a 0.00036% concentration of CFC's is going to
> > > wipe out a >1% concentration of O3
> >
> > It's a catalyst. Catalysts can be present in very small quantities and
> > still have an appreciable effect on the rate of a reaction.
> >
> > Argument from personal incredulity just plain doesn't work.
>
> Aactually, we know that 03 levels drop significantly in the absence
> of sunlight.
>
> We ALSO know that CFC are extremely heavy molecules that really
> don't make it into the upper atmosphere.
Explain the readings that say otherwise. I bet DuPont fucked with
everybody's equipment.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> 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"
>
> 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
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> 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.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:23:37 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Troughton wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make
>claims
> > > > > > > > > > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably
>higher than
> > > > > > > > > > it has been in 600k years.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago
>based on
> > > > > > > > > experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in
>North
> > > > > > > > > America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as a
>continent produces less CO2
> > > > > > > > than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world produces
>way more than is consumed.
> > > > > > > > It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and
>elementary algebra class will help
> > > > > > > > you understand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then maybe you ought to convince those OTHER countries to reform THEIR
> > > > > > > ways, and keep your fucking opinions to yourself in this country.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MORON
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really are into silencing dissent, aren't you? I was under the
> > > > >
> > > > > No. I'm into getting the Ignorami among us to stop spreading their
> > > > > baseless PROPAGANDA.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. You've been proven to be a liar, your claim about not
> > > > attacking first was a lie. You discredit one of my statments and then
> > > > support it to use it to take other countries to task for that which was
> > > > discredited. Can't have it both ways.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > impression that the intellectual foundations of the US system of
> > > > > > governance were all about making sure that people didn't keep their
> > > > > > opinions to themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying arguing that it is good to NOT oppose liars....
> > > >
> > > > You haven't given a source to back up your claims I've noticed, just a
> > > > belief system.
> > >
> > > Your Eco-chicken-little scenarios were discredited YEARS ago, little
> > > *BOY*
> >
> > Notice Aarons persists that I am from the left and doesn't provide proof
> > for his claims. A stinking pile of shit has more sense than him.
> >
>
> If it looks like a duck
> waddles like a duck, and squawks duck-nonsense, chances are, it's a
> duck.
I'm sorry you can't back your claims with proof. If my claims were
discredited years ago you should have a lot to reference and yet can
seem to provide them.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> 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"
>
> 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
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> 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.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:26:29 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote in part:
> >
> > : The Earth is a system of balances. If one thing gets out of whack,
> > : 10 other things compensate to restore the balance.
> >
> > This is true of market economies also.
> >
> > The problem is that it can take a really long time (from our
> > perspective at least) for the damage to be corrected.
> >
> > : This has been happening over billions of years. Many more catastrophic
> > : things have happened to the ecosystem that Humans could ever cook up
> > : and the ecosystem restored itself in a geological second. The amount
> > : of data we, as humans, have collected scientifically over the past
> > : 1-200 years is nothing. It's not even a nano-second in geological
> > : terms. To conclude or attempt to draw anything from these statistics
> > : is meaningless and absurd to say the least.
> >
> > We've collected substantial evidence of the earth's geological
> > history.
> >
> > The catastrophes of earlier geological ages did not destroy the earth,
> > nor will our activities, but they *did* change the climate in ways
> > that would have been horribly destructive to human civilization had it
> > existed at the time. The fear is that our far smaller, but still
> > potentially significant, activities might similarly cause destruction
> > to human (and other) habitats in the relatively near future.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that it will. I'm convinced that it might, though,
> > and that the chance that it might is sufficient reason for us to
> > continue to study and to evaluate our activities to make sure that we
> > aren't creating any potentially avoidable problems.
> >
> > : Dinosaur populations excreted more methane and CO/2 than humans
> > : could ever hope to generate.
> >
> > Yep. But most of the sites of today's cities were under water then.
> > Later, most of today's lakes and straits and mountains were under
> > thousands of feet of ice. Neither of those outcomes would be
> > particularly desirable today.
> >
> > : It's rather arrogant and self-important
> > : to think that humans are so powerful that we could permanently change
> > : or destroy the ecosystem and have it stay permanently dead.
> >
> > I don't think anyone is alleging that we could permanently destroy the
> > Earth. Only that our activities, if continued unchecked, could alter
> > climate substantially enough, and for long enough, to have a
> > detrimental impact on human and other habitats.
> >
> > : We will
> > : kill ourselves with war or accidentally releasing a deadly virus
> > : into the world before we'll ever hope to destroy this planet.
> >
> > Very possible. We've come damn close, more than once. Closer than
> > most people are willing to believe.
> >
> > : Granted, we shouldn't try, I agree we need to control ourselves
> >
> > That's all I'm saying. It's all that responsible environmentalists
> > are saying too. (There are a lot of very *irresponsible* folks
> > pretending to be environmentalists that are saying a lot more.
> > Mostly, those are folks with political agendas, usually of a leftist
> > variety, who *use* well-meaning but naive environmental activists to
> > promote that agenda.)
> >
> > , but
> > : this world has been through huge floods, all sorts of geological
> > : disasters (giant earthquakes, massive volcanoes spewing millions of
> > : tons of CO/2, methane, and all other sorts of noxious gasses into
> > : the atmosphere) and look where we are today, paradise.
> >
> > We have an environment that is in many respects better than it ever
> > has been (more free from infectious disease, for example).
> >
> > The challenge is keeping it that way.
> >
> > And in spite of the progress we've made, there still are serious
> > problems such as air pollution in large cities, both air and water
> > pollution behind the former Iron Curtain, rapid deforestation in
> > certain areas (mostly South America and Latin America), and, to be
> > blunt, unsustainable development in certain parts of the world where
> > there simply is not enough guaranteed fresh water to sustain life.
> > (The wealthy oil states of the Middle East, and the urban areas of the
> > southwestern U.S., are prime examples of this).
> >
> > Preventable diseases still kill tens of millions in the poorest
> > countries. Wars and famines caused mostly by statist political
> > ideologies claim many more.
> >
> > We're doing better than we did in the past in many ways, but there is
> > still much work left to be done.
> >
> > As a libertarian I hope it can be done the way it should be, namely,
> > by voluntary cooperation and consent.
> >
> > But it does need to be done.
> >
> > I don't know if global warming is something we can control, or should
> > attempt to. But I certainly would like to know. And I certainly
> > suggest caution in the meantime.
> >
> > : We're do for
> > : another ice age here in about 25-50,000 years or so, we're probably
> > : just seeing the cycle repeat itself and seeing the ecosystem building
> > : up and building up for the next ice age when it'll all start over
> > : again and the same thing will happen 100,000 years after that like
> > : it's done for the past several million years.
> >
> > Probably.
> >
> > But in the meantime I'd like those who will come after me to be able
> > to enjoy the same, or better, environmental AND economic conditions
> > that we have today.
> >
> > To ensure this, we must avoid both extremes. We must not destroy
> > people's livelihoods in a vain attempt to meet arbitrary or
> > unrealistic goals that might not be necessary or even worthwhile. At
> > the same time, we must not ignore the mounting evidence that warming
> > *is* occurring, that human activities *may* be contributing to it, and
> > that the costs for dealing with it *will* be staggering.
> >
> > : Humanity is not even a blink of an eye in the Earth's history and
> > : it's not about to be destroyed by us.
> >
> > Unlike some of my more left-leaning peers, I'm not concerned about the
> > destruction of Earth, so much as I am about the destruction of human
> > (and other) life on it.
> >
> > Joe
>
> Paging Chicken Little
> Paging Chicken Little
>
> The Sky is Falling!
This is the best Purdue has to offer? Wow, I am stunned by the level of
student they put out there.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> 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"
>
> 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
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> 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.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Malmat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:33:19 -0400
In other words ... no, they didn't find out what makes Win98 freeze up.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:c9wx5.114$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Greg Topf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:mYvx5.5510$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually its not common, its not an indication of the default behavior of
> win98 at all, you likely either have a hardware or software problem
> somewhere. I, as well as many of my clients, have win98 boxes running,
and,
> in fact, being used daily, up for weeks on end without so much as a
> hiccup....
>
> --
>
> Greg M. Topf
> MCP+I. MCSE (NT4, Win2k)
save your breath Greg...youre talking to a religious man
cant convince them of anything...
/IL
>
>
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
