Linux-Advocacy Digest #252, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (J Sloan)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux, it is great. (J Sloan)
The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. (Jim Broughton)
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting (Sgt Detritus)
Re: My experiance with win98 and SCSI vs Linux ("David")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:30:20 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > John Brock wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Having used both extensively I have to agree. In particular I miss
> > > the "ALL" command in Xedit, which has no counterpart in any other
> > > editor I've used.
> >
> > s/bad/good/g
> >
> > /g stands for GLOBAL.
> >
>
> You failed again. I already told you in a previous post that this is not
> equivalent to ALL. Why don't you look up the ALL command in the xedit
> manual and then get back to us.
>
> Gary
Why don't you just say what the ALL command does?
I, for one, am dying to know, having run xedit and man xedit, and
not finding the info you state.
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:32:01 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> Then please explain this excerpt from the top of a message:
>
> <excerpt>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92vpkt$ej2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > hackerbabe wrote:
This type of info was snipped from the posting in question.
give it a rest -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:29:30 GMT
Sounds like you have real computing problems.
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 18:13:03 GMT, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jure Sah wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > ?????? Tell me of a OS that crashes on it's own!!!!!!!!!!!
Moron...
> > > >
> > > > Windows. I've seen it crash more than once before even getting
> > > > to the fucking LOGIN screen.
> > > >
> > > > Can't get any more "crashes on it's own" than that now, can you...
> > >
> > > TIME is beyond your capacity of understanding? Did you have any
software
> > > runing before?
> > >
> >
> > If you mean that the only way not to have Windows crashing
> > is to boot up after a fresh install, without running any
> > software at all, I concur with you that this may somehow
> > reduce the probability, but it can still happen.
> > Just try inserting a CD during the boot process, to make an
> > example.
>
> I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot process until
> I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject the tray
> and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best thing....
>
> Peter
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:31:32 GMT
Is THIS your problem with Windows computing? Too few choices?
Is there ANY legitimate problem you have wintel computing? Or do you just
love to downplay it so that your clients not DARE Think they can get away
with paying you a quarter million for your "UNIX Computing Talents"?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jure Sah wrote:
> >
> > Peter Hayes wrote:
> > > I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot process
until
> > > I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject the
tray
> > > and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best
thing....
> >
> > WTF of a kind of a computer do you have?!
>
> Intel or Intel-compatible, of course.
>
> Are there any other choices?
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> 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
>
> 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....
>
> 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 (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her 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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:36:03 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> The one that brings in the bucks, The e commerce platform. That's right
> IIS.
Those are the platforms that bring in the bucks to microsoft
for sure, but are a very poor choice for the poor schmucks
that have to keep it running -
And do check out netcraft, microsoft/iis market share has
been steadily shrinking over the last 18 months...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:32:22 GMT
He's right, we can't claim it's production delays, product malfunctions, or
anything else because the US Tech market's have been saggging.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > Why did Redhat stock fell?
>
> The whole tech stock market has fallen.
> (That just pushes off the real answer, I
> know. Sorry.)
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:36:34 GMT
Oh, like all the "documented" functionality under Linux.
Nice try.
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NmS46.54285$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92vara$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:kWy46.53665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yes there is a list of commands, but they don't have much to do with
> > > administering the machine. Where do I find the command that would
> > > add or remove an ip addresses for example. There is one, but where
> > > do I find it and it's documentation?
> >
> > ipconfig
>
> Let me try again. Where do I find this command and it's documentation,
> unless you meant to imply that the correct way to find out about this
> hidden functionality is to ask on usenet? Where are the on-line
> manual pages for this new stuff?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:40:50 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Not only that, but Linux has been ported to IBM S/390.
>
> When, if ever, will LoseDOS be ported to IBM S/390?
Of course, the answer is "never" -
It would be absurd, as you know (rhetorical question I assume)
jjs
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:42:14 GMT
The new linux kernel 2.4.0 has finaly been released.
It is available at kernel.org or SOME of its mirrors.
The rest of the mirrors will probably catch up by some
time on jan 5.
--
Jim Broughton
(The AmigaOS now there was an OS!)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:42:46 GMT
In article <9306le$5sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Sgt Detritus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92vnlh$cne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <92varv$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Sgt Detritus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Boring, I read Terry Prachett & eat Carrot instead.
> > >
> > True, Pratchett is much more entertaining. If I were to eat
anything
> > though it would likely be Angua (I'm going to stop now as further
> > comments are not the type to be shared in mixed company)<grin>
>
> Actually, I meants carrots as the vegtable, I love them.
>
> And watch out for the moon phase or otherwise you will be the dinner,
not
> the diner.
Sorry 'bout that, my mind was in the gutter at that point, not that it
isn't all the time....
Thanks for the amusing aside!
paul
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My experiance with win98 and SCSI vs Linux
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:51:41 GMT
Except for Adaptec 15xx and some new series. Check how many people posted
about these issues in linux class groups. I found questions so popular
until I went into problem myself. I never get simmilar problem of Adaptec
15xx 29xx in Win$s although installed hundreds.
I'm not win$s fan and actually dumping it and move to linux, but I have to
face the fact now what a pity.
dave
although some guy kindly pointed out there is scsi-howto article, but it
took me while to find, cuz it's not in the list, another pity
feel bad, check the site yourself see if u can find:
ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO
"genkai wa doko da" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92be1a$8cn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't even know why I am posting except it's something to do on a
> cold night after tooling on a disagreeable computer all day.
>
> I have right now 5 SCSI cards, I have gotten them over the last 3 years
> in varying ways from throw aways to paying small amounts of cash ($16 or
> less) all of them work under linux fine, some better than others, but
> what can you do, they read and write from/to a disk, what more could you
> want?
>
> Of these hosts 4 of them will not work with win98 under any
> swapping/removal of other cards in the same machine. The hosts are as
> follows:
>
> Adaptec 2940U (bios v1.23S3) Compaq OEM I believe (PCI)
> Asus PC-2000 NCR53C810 Based controller (PCI)
> Always in2000 (16 bit ISA)
> Mediavision PAS16 (combo scsi+soundcard 16 bit ISA)
> Future Domain TMC-845 (8 bit ISA)
>
> The only one that works in Windows for me is the 8 Bit ISA card.
> Now obviously all these cards are supported under Windows but even with
> a clean OS install, juggling of CMOS reserved IRQ settings, different
> motherboards altogether, installing the newest drivers, etc. I'm no
> slouch when it comes to puzzling out problems and this is just a total
> puzzle. All I can say is viva Linux (and Unix in general!) I'm not even
> a great advocate of Linux I don't _care_ if other people use it. I'm
> just as happy tinkering on an Amiga or Sparc or VAX (which you'll notice
> Linux runs (to some degree) on all 3 of these platforms but that's not
> my point ;)
>
> Anyone else have far greater 'luck' with expansion cards under Linux vs
> Windows?
>
>
> brian
>
> --
> RCS/RI, Retro Computing Society: http://www.osfn.org/rcs/
> RIFUG, RI Free Unix Group: http://www.rifug.org/
> Dropdead, my band: http://www.dropdead.org/
> my videogame stuff: http://www.gloom.org/~gauze/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:59:43 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Jan 2001 20:15:39
>On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:19:00 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
[...]
>>Third parties *don't* sabotage elections.
>
>They do -- they siphon of votes from the major parties, so that it's possible
>for a party that doesn't have majority support to win the election. For
>example, if there was one party with 40% of the support, and two similar
>parties one with 35% of the support, and one with 20%, the one with 40%
>would win, though 55% of the population absolutely loathe them.
>
>The problem is that the naive throw-your-vote-away system doesn't work
>very well when more than two parties are running. Instant runoffs
>http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html are
>designed to be robust enough to behave fairly even when third parties
>are involved. In an instant runoff system, the third party can participate
>or not without changing the outcome, which seems fair to me -- I don't
>think the third party running should impact how the major parties do
>relative to each other.
I believe that is because you think, mistakenly, that a two-party system
indicates that whoever win has the support of more than 50% of the
people. Its idealized thinking to suggest that a two party system is
any different than a three party system, or a ten party system, other
than the ease with which the delusion of 'simple majority' is maintained
by those in power.
I happen to agree that third parties should not so easily gain access to
presidential elections, at least until their party has shown popular and
political support by winning elections for local and legislative
elections. But this leads to two unfortunate results, one abhorrent and
the other counter-productive. It does make establishing support and
credibility in the current environment, dominated by rhetoric and a
public which all too eagerly buys in to media skudwork and
oversimplified hyperbabble, a difficult task, and that's
counter-productive. But it is abhorrent that it provides the most
credibility, of third parties in the US today, to the twisted and
fractured remnants of Ross Pero's band of merry men, since hijacked by
Buchanan Intolerants after a short stop at popularization with Jesse
Ventura. But again, these are only the media darlings; truth is, there
are many third party candidates holding state, local, and even federal
office, IIRC.
>A major problem with this is that it makes it very hard for third parties
>to obtain any momentum, because voters move away from them over "wasted
>vote" concerns, which led to various "vote swapping" scams among other
>things. The wasted vote issue is created by a poorly designed electoral
>system that breaks when third parties are added to the game.
Actually, its the 'vote swapping' thing that is problematic for fans of
two-party partisanship. Its all to easy to forget that politics is like
slaughtering chickens; two activities its sometimes best not to
experience first hand. The fact is, politics is politics. Waving
around how sordid it can be in a government which requires a coalition
of parties is just scare tactics, considering how entirely deranged by
partisan rhetoric our current society is. We've invented a convenient
"them" for every occasion; the flaming liberals if your a Republican,
the greedy conservatives if your a Democrat.
Personally, I don't long for a coalition style of government, quite.
But it seems to me that three parties should be considered the rational
minimum. It cuts down on the political hyperbole and blame-casting,
even if it does strip bare the delusion of a "moral majority" for
whichever "side" gets to claim control.
>>You may not believe in the two party system, but it has it's merits, not
>>the least of which is that most of the time, the winning candidate has
>>the support of the majority of the people.
>
>Quite often, they don't especially if third party candidates run.
They hardly EVER do, regardless of how many candidates run. It is the
number of people who vote, not the number of candidates, which
determines that rather plain fact.
>With an instant runoff system, (again, http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html)
>you *CANNOT* win without an *absolute
>majority* (that means strcitly more than 50%) of the vote.
That's called a 'simple majority'. HTH.
>IOW, an instant
>runoff system is better at ensuring the winning candidate has more than
>50% of the votes than the current system.
An instant run-off is a way to gain legitimacy by gradually restricting
the choices to the same two choices we end up with to begin with. It
might be considered "fair" in a theoretical sense, and might work for
very small, closed elections. But the thought of trying to seriously
apply it to the United States of America federal elections is, if you'll
excuse me, a bit irrational.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:05:46 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:59:51
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:08:09
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:30
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> >The FL Supreme
>> >> >> >Court was an example of liberal gerry-mandering in the process of
>> >elections.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And what diety-on-high proclaimed this to you? Rush Limbaugh?
>> >> >
>> >> >It was obvious to anyone that didn't have their head in the sand, like you.
>> >>
>> >> Oh really? Liberal gerry-mandering? I hadn't heard that, and I got
>> >> daily updates on the issue because I happen to be traveling at the time,
>> >> and I like to watch the Today show and read the paper when I'm
>> >> traveling.
>> >
>> >What do you call the otherwise inexplicable constitutional law-breaking
>> >that the FL SC committed?
>>
>> A judicial decision which was overturned.
>
>A judicial decision which was HIGHLY questionable and completely without
>merit.
Once again, engaging in rampant hind-sight to support your attempt to
use a tautology as an argument from ignorance. A judicial decision
which was overturned. All else is hyperbole.
>Something completely out of the ordinary for educated legal
>professionals with many years practicing law. To make a judicial decision
>without citing any applicable law, violating the U.S. Constitution, the
>Florida Constitution, and at least 2 state laws is not merely a "judicial
>decision".
I heard the same kind of vapid rhetoric coming from people concerning
the MS II decisions, both Jackson's and the Appellate Court's. It seems
to me to be an abrogation of reason not to realize that, if you consider
something a higher court judge is doing is mistaken, then the chances
are quite likely that you failed to comprehend the matter sufficiently.
That is why they're judges.
Reading a couple of judicial decisions with a fine-tooth comb, and
seeing how it corresponds and correlates to what other people, and what
other legal scholars, say about them, I've come to the conclusion that
this is a very frequent test of the ability to reason, and is all too
often horribly failed by many, even intelligent, people who attempt it.
The fact remains true that the US Supreme Court vacated the Florida
Supreme Court's decision because it did not include sufficient legal
reasoning to support the conclusion. Under the circumstances, it would
appear that the judiciary might have believed that an expedient decision
would be preferable to a complete one. Obviously, the country now
disagrees, because the highest court in the land did.
>> Happens all the time.
>
>Not like this. It has happened at most twice in the 20th century. I know
>of one, but not the second, but I'm sure someone could find one.
How silly of you not to mention either, so that we might examine whether
they are at all similar or related.
>This magnitude of legal incompetence (or bias) at a State Supreme Court level is
>asstounding.
I will wait to hear your case before I decide on the validity of your
claims. So far, it seems you are simply pre-disposed to indicting them
in retrospect, in an effort to strengthen your pretense of moral or
intellectual superiority of the Republican planks.
>> Obviously, the fine arguments and inferential consideration of law does
>> not equate in my mind to "inexplicable constitutional law-breaking".
>
>They violated the 14th Amendment as well as the seperations clause of
>the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. This was pointed out in both
>of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in this matter.
They did not show the amount of concern and respect for the "equal
protection" ramifications of their decision, according to the Supreme
Court. It is a fine legal shading; as far as anyone else is concerned,
it was an entirely theoretical issue. Judiciaries do not "violate the
Constitution" when they make arguments which are overturned by higher
courts on Constitutional grounds. Their *decisions* may "violate the
Constitution", if you insist on engaging in meaningless rhetoric, but to
say that they were incompetent and violated the Constitution simply
because their decision was overturned is simply attempting to demonize
them, because a simple conclusion isn't enough; your intellectually
vapid foot-stomping, insisting that you have a moral integrity unmatched
by those around you because you are a conservative Republican requires
that you establish some pretense of superiority.
>> >You can call it whatever you want, but an
>> >accurate description would be liberal gerry-mandering.
>>
>> Indeed, you cannot call it anything you want and remain a reasonable
>> person, and I would surmise that calling it "liberal gerry-mandering" is
>> the equivalent of declaring yourself an unreasonable person.
>
>I have proven, on several occasions that there was, in fact, bias and
>tampering with the election process in Florida by the Democrats.
No, you've said that there was, repeatedly and without any real support,
outside of unattributed media reporting snippets. There was no bias nor
tampering with the election process in Florida by Democrats AT ALL, so
far as you could possibly prove. (Others, with the ability to actively
investigate the matter, might do better.) In fact, the Democrats asked
for a recount, and the Republicans prevented it from being completed in
time to even be considered. The Bush camp filed the first law-suit, you
know.
>If you
>with to keep your eyes close and ignore them, then that's fine, but
>until you have any facts or evidence to say they didn't (which you don't,
>or you would've produced it by now) I will not respond to, nor quote
>any further remarks on the topic as I have clearly put it to rest and
>established the facts.
So far, even with open eyes, I haven't been able to spot any "facts or
evidence" in your posts; just ranting and foot-stomping.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:08:08 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Jan 2001 19:57:42
GMT;
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:53:53 GMT;
>>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>No, what well-known fact. Sheesh.
>>
>>This is what people learn these days, huh? Bunch of soft-headed
>>ignoramuses. The Supreme Court Decided, and that means the Democrats
>>were wrong, huh? Get the fuck out of my newsgroup.
>
>I think the fact that the vote was not unanimous and the fact that
>the Florida court even bothered to listen to the arguments put forth
>by the democrats in the first place implies that they at least had
>a reasonable case, and were probably justified in pursuing it.
>
>It's funny how these Republican zealots accuse the dems of breaking
>the law -- I'd argue that it's for the courts to decide how the laws
>are meant to be interpreted. The Rs prevailed, but it seems simple
>minded at best, dishonest at worst, to pigeon-hole it as a case of
>the democrats rewriting the rules.
>
>And it's even more dishonest to hold the supreme court on a pedestal,
>while at the same time dismissing the dissenting judges as "activist
>judges" or something of the sort. I mean, one can't have it both ways.
Thank you, Donovan. Nice to see someone else, at least, who can
separate fact from fiction without blowing circuits.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
