Linux-Advocacy Digest #496, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:05 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:14:53
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> What a fucking surprise. Doh!
>>
>> Why don't you guys take it to comp.suck.bills.dick.windows.advocacy and
>> quite trolling with some senseless crap about 'WDM' that nobody here
>> gives a damn about?
>
>Why, are we leaving the resident twoll (i.e. you) out in the cold are we?
Check the newsgroups line, lamer.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:06 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:13:42
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>Besides, the Great Shaitan, I mean Microsoft, has decreed [...]
>>
>> Don't you mean "I mean requested their customers to..."?
>
>No, I mean decreed. Not fitting into your square hole am I?
You'd have to ask someone else their opinion on that, I'm afraid. As
far as I can tell, I've got you pretty well pegged, yeah.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:06 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:12:29
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
[snip re-un-snipped:]
>>>If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
>>>still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
>>
>> You're apparently trying very hard to remain ignorant of precisely what
>> we are bad mouthing Windows for.
[original message quotes:]
>>>I'm not trying, I'm succeeding. I call you a hypocrit because you'rev
>>>still using a Windows application. Surely if you believe Windows is crap,
>>>you'd drop it in favour of a Linux equivalent?
>>
>> Now *that* is what they mean when they say "not very quick on the
>> uptake."
>
>Brilliant. Throw something in that makes absolutely no sense and completely
>ignore what's being said to you.
'Nuf said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:07 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 06:02:12
>Roy Culley wrote:
>
>>> Brilliant. Throw something in that makes absolutely no sense and
>>> completely ignore what's being said to you.
>>
>> You are thick aren't you? Most people have no choice but to use Windows.
>> Get a clue.
>
>He's using Agent on Linux. He said as much himself. Or did I miss something
>here?
Did I? I don't recall "saying as much", or even hinting at it, really.
I am using Agent on Win95b, currently. Before that, I was using it on
NT4.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:08 GMT
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 May 2001 14:24:37 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
>writes:
>>In article <9dkf33$okk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Am I correct in believing that I can create a derivative work, as
>>long as I don't try to distribute it (as that would be required to
>>make the copyright owner aware of my activities).
>
>Not if you are considering United States copyright law. The exclusive
>right to create derivative works is in addition to the exclusive right
>of distribution. So you infringe by creating the derivative work, whether
>it is distributed or not. See 17 USC 106.
>
>That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
>to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
>that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
>about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
>is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
>still be available.
Pure metaphysics. No, Stefaan, it is not illegal to prepare derivative
works, as long as you don't distribute them. "In theory" or something,
this is "contrary to the law", but to claim it is unlawful is complete
baloney, because in practice it is NOT contrary to the law. You will
find you have 'usurped the exclusive rights of the author' (more
metaphysics), but you will not find any statute that says what you did
was illegal, nor any lawyer to prosecute you, nor any judge to find you
guilty. Copyright is really meaningless unless you're talking about
commercial activity. Just about everything else either is or should be
"fair use".
Unless you make more than 10 copies of something, or copies worth more
than $1000, there is no criminal violation of law. Lee's observation
that "in theory" you could be "liable" is just more metaphysics. No
single derivative work that you do not distribute to anyone could
possibly be in violation of any copyright law, except metaphysically.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:10 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 20:50:47 GMT;
>On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Sit down. Write a program that uses a GPL library which you've never
>>seen and don't have. (This is the issue, I know; you think the
>>developer should have end-user rights of fair use, particularly with
>>open code.) Using only the API specification, and no prior testing save
>>a stub library, create the program. Distribute it under a non-GPL
>>license. Wait for the FSF thugs to threaten to take you to court. (So
>>far just like the RIPEM guys, right? Except they begged the question by
>>using the library itself, not only the API and a stub.)
>
>This is an asinine line of argument. No one has money to throw around
>just to teach you copyright law. Even winning a law suit is an
>expensive way to indulge a hobby.
Given the potentially lucrative commercial basis of the Linux operating
system (giving Windows a run for its money in some segments, something
no other product has ever been able to do), I would think there is more
than enough money to throw around to actually prove what you are
assuming about copyright law. But, of course, even winning or losing a
law suite doesn't "prove" anything about the law, only about it's
application.
>>So you're right, you don't have to agree to the contract. You have to
>>do more. You have to break the contract, according to the FSF, and
>>prove them wrong in court. Should be so pitifully trivial, for all the
>
>You can't break a contract that hasn't been formed.
You can't distribute copyrighted works (or derivative works) without the
permission of the author. Yes, the INTENT of this action by the FSF
*was* to 'scare people off'; they don't want GNU to become the basis of
a commercial code-base, since providing an alternative to commercial
code-bases is the whole point of the GNU.
Quite whining, that's all I've got to say. If you don't believe there's
a contract, fine: act as if there is no contract. The most the FSF will
care, unless you're building commercial software, is to insist that you
write a non-GPL version of the library they claim you 'infringed' on.
Whether you did or didn't, though, writing that library is a good idea,
if you really want to claim that you've "authored" something. People
who write only those series books are hacks, not authors. You shouldn't
base your work on someone else's work, and feel so justified in calling
it your own; that's the only issue in the FSF's supposedly predatory
claims about the GPL.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:11 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 22:03:27
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Sit down. Write a program that uses a GPL library which you've never
>> seen and don't have. (This is the issue, I know; you think the
>> developer should have end-user rights of fair use, particularly with
>> open code.) Using only the API specification, and no prior testing save
>> a stub library, create the program. Distribute it under a non-GPL
>> license. Wait for the FSF thugs to threaten to take you to court. (So
>> far just like the RIPEM guys, right? Except they begged the question by
>> using the library itself, not only the API and a stub.)
>
>This is irrelevant since they have the right to use the library, they just
>don't have the right to redistribute it as part of a non-GPL product,
>which they didn't.
To use a component in production is to use it commercially. IIRC, the
GPL only gives you the right to use the software for your private use.
Private use != commercial use, even if it is simply the connotation, not
the action, of "use" that changes.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:12 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May
[...]
>I try to be as precise as possible, when it suits me. :-)
>However, I'm still at a disadvantage, for I do not use it, either,
>as I've stated (I'm not a game developer). Not that "it sucks"
>is all that precise.
If you have to install it, or fix it when it breaks, you "use" it when
the games you play "use" it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:13 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:10:19
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>But I don't know you from Adam, do I? All you said was "DirectX sucks" but
>>>you offered no explanation as to why. In another post you finally put
>>>forth some reasons why it sucks - and guess what, I agree with you,
>>>partly.
>>
>> Perhaps your memory is even worse than mine. Are you unaware that we've
>> been dancing in COLA for well over two years, now, Pete? Your posturing
>> is obvious and bogus. Just so you know.
>
>Two years!
>
>ROFL!
>
>I've been on COLA less than six months.
>
>Boy your memory is seriously broken!!!
Perhaps it was alt.destroy.microsoft? Or I'm misremembering some other
troll names Pete Goodwin?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:15 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:09:09
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>Now you've prejudged me. What a surprise.
>>>
>>>You don't _seriously_ believe I don't _know_ how DirectX sucks do you?
>>>[...]
>>
>> One way or the other, you've just made a fool of yourself, Pete. Take a
>> break.
>
>Now how have I done that T Max? I never said DirectX does _not_ suck. I
>merely asked you why it _does_ suck, which you didn't do at first.
Why did you ask, if you already know? Do you not realize that publicly
declaring that you are being disingenuous and dishonest in public is
"making a fool of yourself"?
Look; it doesn't matter to me whether you want to be known as a lamer or
a troll, Pete; I'll spank your rosy cheeks either way. But try to
maintain some dignity. I look like I'm bullying an ignorant child if
you don't at least try to pretend you aren't both lame and a troll.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:15 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
[...]
>They do that because [...]
Just wanted to let you know, I stopped reading right there. Just
because.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:16 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
[...]
>So it is your contention that I am being dishonest,
>yet that I may still believe what I say.
Being dishonest stands on its own, Daniel. I have no need to correlate
it with anything but dishonesty.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:18 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Just to be annoying:
>>
>> Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
>> record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
>> looking any better.
>
>You do realize that most other software also has probably just as many
>security bugs, but since they aren't the target of constant probing, they
>aren't discovered.
Whether inductive assumption or argument from ignorance, you theory is
fatally flawed. Windows security sucks because monopolization, unlike
competition, does not result in good engineering, because consumers
cannot demand good engineering, and so Windows is monopoly crapware, and
"probably" has many many more security bugs, both known and so far
undiscovered, than any other software.
>Also, companies like Sun and HP are constantly releasing
>patches to security bugs that they themselves have found before hackers
>exposed them.
And rarely doing what Microsoft does, getting caught with their pants
down, having to patch something after it's already been exploited.
Often to the inconvenience (and even financial detriment) of millions of
people all over the world.
>Hell, each new Linux kernel tends to have at least one security related bug
>fix, and sometimes more, not to mention the various buffer overflow
>exploits.
Not to mention those bits of monopoly crapware bad engineering that they
refuse to correct, but just obfuscate the issue as much as they can
until the press lays off.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:17 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> Welcome to the fascinating world of abstraction. Ever read Plato,
>> >> Daniel? That's what you're trying, known as the Socratic or Platonic
>> >> method; through this means it is possible to "prove" that nothing
>> >> "exists". Ever heard the term "post-modern bullshit"? That's what
>> >> you've got there.
>> >
>> >No, it isn't. Saying "T Max Devlin is wrong, again" isn't
>> >the same as saying "Everyone is wrong, nothing is true".
>>
>> What does an induction assumption mixed with a category error have to do
>> with the empirically proven uselessness of the platonic method for
>> defining abstractions?
>
>I take it from this that you do not feel you can
>defend your positions, and so wish to change the
>subject.
I take it from this that you're sufficiently ignorant of the potential
problems caused by an inductive assumption to compound one with another,
and so are incapable of proceeding with the discussion.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:19 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:17
>> [...]
>> >> It has to be what people familiar with the term mean when they say
>> >> "API".
>> >
>> >I'm trying to get a fix on what *you* think it is.
>>
>> An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
>> library in programming software.
>
>Within limits, that is actually correct, I'm very impressed.
Wow. You agree with me. I'm not impressed.
>> Also; the specification of this in a formal encoding language,
>> documentation in natural language concerning that specification and its
>> use, and/or a label used to denote a general class of problems possible
>> while using the library.
>
>Just when you got my hopes high?
>What you just described what COM, not API.
So? I'll happily argue that COM is an API. It's as good as any other
arbitrary definition, as all definitions of COM would be.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:20 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:17
>> [...]
>> >> It has to be what people familiar with the term mean when they say
>> >> "API".
>> >
>> >I'm trying to get a fix on what *you* think it is.
>>
>> An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
>> library in programming software.
>
>Ah; so perhaps you object to my calling int 21h an API
>because you take "int 21h" to refer narrowly to a machine
>instruction, and not all the surrounding folderol?
No, its the folderol that is the problem. If you want to define int 21h
as some sort of API that has precisely and only one function call (int
21h), that I can go along with. If for some reason you felt like
playing semantical games. In real life, it simply isn't an API. 'Nuf
said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:21 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 00:32:52
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:17
>> [...]
>> >> It has to be what people familiar with the term mean when they say
>> >> "API".
>> >
>> >I'm trying to get a fix on what *you* think it is.
>>
>> An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
>> library in programming software.
>>
>> Also; the specification of this in a formal encoding language,
>> documentation in natural language concerning that specification and its
>> use, and/or a label used to denote a general class of problems possible
>> while using the library.
>
>Nope. Its' an acronym. You're reading more into it than you should.
You're obviously reading less into it than you need to me if all you're
going to say is "it's an acronym". Du-uh! We *know* it's an acronym.
But it's used as a word, so it has a meaning different then just
"application programming interface", since, analyzed critically, the
term 'application', 'programming', or 'interface' don't have any more
precise definition all by themselves than the word "API".
>It's an
>interface to OS internals for use by applications that sit atop the OS.
>Nothing more.
So what if it's not an OS? Does this make every library with an API an
OS, all by itself?
>You can filibuster until blue in the face but that fact will
>not change. End of story. Next subject please...
Which fact? What story? And what's the next subject?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:21 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>> >You sure about that? If you admit those things, your
>> >argument becomes rather weaker.
>>
>> If this were true, why do you think it would make a difference to me?
>
>Well, you seem to like being right. :D
Do I? I don't know about you, but if I read the things I've been
posting to Usenet, I would think that whoever wrote them vastly
preferred being wrong, as a general rule.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>> >MS is not as
>> >dominant in those areas as in word processors and
>> >spreadsheets.
>>
>> This is true, yet it is not obvious how it could possibly weaken my
>> argument, considering my argument remains entirely and exactly correct
>> regardless. I don't recall claiming they owned the planet, or were the
>> only producer in all markets, or that they 'dominated' every single
>> application market. I merely pointed out that the most common
>> applications are all Microsoft products.
>
>Oh. You do *not* mean to support any of your points
>by pointing that out, then?
Huh? Your use of "then" leads me to think you believe there's some
logic to your statement. I can find none. Please explain. Better yet,
just realize (no bother to alert us when you do) that you're just
trolling, using dishonest words (like this 'then' that you know damn
well is inappropriate), in some bizarre private play for dignity arguing
that Windows is not monopoly crapware, plain and simple. Then have a
nice life. IOW: go away.
>Sorry. I thought it was supposed to be relevant.
>
>My mistake.
I thought you weren't going to bore me. My mistake. Doh!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:22 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Sure, sure. If I were half as clueless as you sound, I might be almost
>> as clueless as you think I am.
>
>Sooo_then....your clueless no matter what?
"You are" = you're. 'Nuf said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
