Linux-Advocacy Digest #702, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: which OS is best? (A_Customer_at_an_easyEverything_Cybercafe)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (Jim Broughton)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:02:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> 16:03:33 GMT
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul
2000
> >> [...]
> >> >> That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
> >> >
> >> >So, what? You know, the old latin proverb doesn't say that the
> >exception
> >> >proves the rule, but that the exception TESTS the rule. Meaning
that
> >> >if the exception is real, the rule is not universal.
> >>
> >> ...which is meant to indicate that no rules are universal, and so
you
> >> cannot use one exception to indicate that a rule doesn't exist.
> >
> >Excuse me, but romans were not idiots.
>
> If only you could lay the same claim. You're starting to be
> recognizable by name as being glitchy, if not clueless, Roberto. I'd
> just thought I'd tell you, because I'm hoping you will help me learn
> something, if you can.
Well, pots and kettles come to mind. But I�ll give you the benefit
of the doubt and take this response seriously.
> >If that was the goal, then
> >everyone could postulate anything as a rule, and whenever it fails,
> >it wouldn't matter.
> >
> >Romans cared much more about logic than that,
>
> Yes, apparently they cared more about logic than whatever that was you
> just said. The ability to postulate rules does not indicate that the
> rule exists.
Existence of rules can�t be proven, correctness of rules sometimes
can. I was assuming "postulate as a correct rule". Postulation of
false rules was ot a roman hobbie, AFAIK.
> I said "one example cannot be used to indicate that a rule
> doesn't exist".
No, you did not, but hey, I agree with you. One example, of course,
is enough to prove that a rule is WRONG.
> Two examples may be. Three examples might even be
> considered to be a *strong* indication that a rule doesn't exist, but
> that would depend on the purported strength of the rule and the number
> of examples available. When a rule fails, it is because an
insufficient
> proportion of examples fit it, not because somebody noticed that a few
> don't.
Well, Jedi, we are obviously writing about different things.
> These aren't *laws* we're talking about, are they, but rules?
> Was the latin word for law different, perhaps? I'd appreciate it if
you
> could post the original latin "the exception proves the rule", if you
> have it so we could see. I could be wrong about that.
Oh, mine.
> >Usually, it means that the exception either was not an exception
because
> >of some hidden fact, or that the rule should be changed to account
for
> >it.
>
> No, it means when making logical deductions, one cannot assume that an
> apparent exception to the rule is not illusory.
But you must assume it is not illusory. What do you do when facing
a counterexample? Wait for the illusion to go away? You must tackle
it and try to find why it fails.
> Similarly, in modern
> science (which we can thank the Romans for in some large part, I
think),
> the failure or success of one experiment does not disprove an
empirical
> theory.
>
> >For example: if 1/x can not be derived at 0, that meant that the rule
> >"all functions can be derived" was not a good rule, and that it had
> >to be changed, or discarded.
>
> You are again thinking of rules, like whether something would or would
> not be chosen to be LGPL or GPL, for mathematical *laws*. For
practical
> purposed, if the vast majority of functions can be derived, then
that's
> a rule, regardless of the fact that it has exceptions.
As I said in another message, I never claimed to be an engineer. Do
you? Please tell me ou don�t.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(A_Customer_at_an_easyEverything_Cybercafe)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:22:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've taught both platforms and can say hand on my heart, it's easier
to get someone to point at something rather than to try and remember
which commands to type in or in what order to do them in. Or course
you will always get the odd person who will fail to grasp even that -
I taught a guy who put engines together for a living, but couldn't
figure out that holding a mouse the wrong way round (the wire coming
out the bottom) would not help matters.
You're trying to tell me that a command based structure would really
help?
What colour is the sky outside your window?
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 17:09:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >>Yes, for a real test, try to describe a procedure over the phone
>: >>to someone who has not used a computer before, having them write
>: >>down the directions that they must follow when they get to the
>: >>machine and you can't talk to them anymore. I've been fairly
>: >>successful at this with remote equipment that required typed
>: >>commands. I don't even want to think about it for something
>: >>that uses icons and pointers.
>: >
>: >Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Finding someone who
>: >doesn't know at least a little bit about a GUI nowadays is pretty odd,
>: >but finding people who abhore the CLI is commonplace. I would
>: >anticipate just the reverse of what you've said...
>
>: It probably depends on how you were brainwashed in school. Apple
>: and Microsoft invested a lot in making you think the way you
>: do. If it were really intuitive, there would, of course, be
>: no need to make such an effort to expose children at an early
>: age - they would just understand it anyway...
>
>: Les Mikesell
>: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Experiments with my 3-year-old (almost 4) niece show that she can (usually,
>until she gets frustrated with something) understand that moving the mouse
>on the mouse pad causes a similar movement of the pointer on the screen,
>without instruction, and account for the tracking speed (which at the
>resolution I set the screen to for her is about 4:1). With this in mind
>she can operate a simple painting program. Her motor skills as evidenced
>by the result on the screen appear nearly as good as those evidenced by her
>drawings with pen on paper.
>Granted, moving a mouse accurately, clicking on things and dragging (and I
>gave her practically no instruction in this by the way; I set out at the
>beginning to let her learn it herself as much as possible) does not
>directly imply ability to use a GUI, and I consequently take the
>responsibility to start the program for her. But these are the basic skills
>required to use a GUI efficiently, and the corresponding skill for a CLI
>(touch typing) is something which I have yet to see exhibited by a child
>of that age.
>
>Karl Knechtel {:>
>da728 at torfree dot net <-- currently not working -
>torfree.net seems to be having problems.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:08:55 GMT
I will not answer to everything. I will just answer to a small
piece, which shows the intellectual bankrupcy of the debate.
I said:
> >My opinion is valuable or not based on itself and on who I am and
what
> >I do, not on what wrong things someone says about me.
>
> Blah blah blah. If the value of your opinion is based on what you
say,
> your stock just went down. Lighten up for Christ's sake. I was
teasing
> you at the end of a message. Its common on Usenet, if you haven't
> noticed.
You told me to die, and I should lighten up? You have repeatedly
called me dishonest, and I should not care because I should
lighten up?
I find your posiion morally repugnant.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:14:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >[snip] I won't debate with you anymore.
> >
> >> >Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's
> >> >worth the trouble.
> >>
> >> Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
> >
> >No, it's the part where you asked me to die, bozo, and that you
deleted
> >in your response. I need not take shit from you.
>
> I've never asked someone to die, except for the rhetorical "eat shit
and
> die" or "fuck off and die", and I'm sure I haven't said either to you.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
" But if you're hanging around just to collect a paycheck, dude, then
I'd recommend suicide. We could use the space you're taking up, and
someone who wants to act like a civilized person wants to use it."
> >Now, what have you done for this "free software community" you seem
> >to like so much? What have you done to pull your own weight?
>
> Defended the FSF from trolls, mostly. I'm not a programmer, you see,
> and that's where most of the action is these days. They've got a lot
of
> code to write.
Basically nothing. Of course. You could send money, too.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:27:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
> Yet part of good security practice is knowing exactly whats nessesary,
> and a PPP connection will hardly attract too terribly many 31337 h@x0rz,
> looking for places from which to flood, dump warez, and various and sundry
> other bandwidth-intensive activities.
>
> >
> >> Neat. A dynamic ip.
> >
> >> Neat, two people got the same ip.
> >
> > What is the probability of all that comming together the way it did with a
> > disinterested third party performing the scan?
>
> Small enough that your blatant accusation was a mistake.
>
> > No, you have your facts wrong again! I am not a loon, I am human. My
> > species is homo sapien sapien. I have ten finger with which I use this
> > keyboard. If I were a loon my digits would be imbedded into my wings and
> > not available for typing.
> >
>
> You are a loon.
>
> -----yttrx
Dynamic IP address such as ours attract far more attention than
one would think. I no longer have the logs to post but I personaly
have seen several attacks (by way of the system logs on my server)
on my system when logged into my ISP (that by the way my firewall
stopped cold and logged them) Attempts at the DNS ports attempts at
the samba (SMB to you wintoads) ports attempts at NFS, and of course
the ever present attempt at telnet. This of course
might have been some loser doing a general port scan for those type
of services but the fact remains that those attempts were made.
And just so that you can't claim otherwise I do not run a dns server
for my meager little network nor do I run Samba(SMB). I do run nfs but have
it cut off from the external world via the firewall and it is set up and
functioning quite well.
It is also quite possbile to run a port scan FROM a dynamicly assigned
IP address as well so dont rule out the possibility of what he claims.
Jim Broughton
--
(The Amiga OS! now there was a real OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:27:03 -0400
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
> >signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
> >2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
> >far too long, he does nothing!
> >
> >It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
>
> I'd plonk him, but Microsoft hasn't innovated the killfile yet.
>
> BTW, Aaron, who the fsck is "Tammy Hahn"? Hell, who the fsck are most of
> the other people in your sig?
"Tammy Hahn"...for the clueless and humor impaired, is the unification
of "Tammy Fae Baker" and "Jessica Hahn"
Do I really need to explain EVERYTHING to you???
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:27:20 -0400
Bob Lyday wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >>
> > >But I've noticed that to
> > > most people these days "proper administration" and "competent end-user"
>
> Some people consider me to be a computer geek. I get about 1-2 blue
> screens a day and have to reboot Windows on a daily basis. I am
> incompetent?
>
> > > equates to "knows how to avoid doing the things that make Windows tend
> > > to crash",
>
> Like "run the minimum number of programs at once" and other idiotic
> advice. A good OS should allow you to run plenty of apps at once, no
> problem, right?
>
> And that is as much a problem of troubleshooting and system management
> > > technique as it is crappy software,
>
> Frankly, I am sick and tired of this excuse, "Windows crashes due to bad
> drivers, bad 3rd party software, etc." Tell me, does *nix often go down
> due to these things? I don't think so.
>
> (Some might argue that many did, which
> > > is why "reboot/reinstall" is the primary technique for dealing with
> > > problematic Windows installations.)
>
> My opinion is that a good OS should rarely need to be reinstalled. Is
> this true?
A good OS should NEVER need to be reinstalled.
> --
> Bob
> USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue.
> Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 15 Jul 2000 17:30:15 -0500
In article <62_b5.8055$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Take your favorite flavor of API and plug-in that does not
>> involve a standard wire protocol. Try to make it work
>> with an IBM 390 on the other end. Or even a Sparc.
>
>Sure. What you do is you get a plug in that speaks the IBM 390's
>langauge (or the Sparcs). Somebody has to write one of course;
>in this case I believe Microsoft *has* written one, but if they
>haven't then IBM can do so. Or heck, you can hire someone
>to do so. Or even do it yourself, if you've the skill.
It takes more than skill to write code that makes 2 proprietary
products interoperate. It also requires trade secret knowledge
about both products. If such a thing exists and works 100%
correctly it may turn out to be usable. However, if it doesn't
exist there may be no way to create one since you may not
be able to get access to the necessary secrets. And if it
doesn't work reliably you have no way to diagnose the problem
if it doesn't follow a published protocol.
>Plug in that plug in. Now you are speaking the IBM 390's
>protocol, and it can talk to you without itself being modified
>at all.
To make this approach work you need a plug in for every
possible source to match every possible destination.
And in the likely event that it doesn't work, how do you
tell what is wrong?
>Now, how do standard protocols help you with this, if
>the IBM 390 is going to be uncooperative. I had options:
>I can change the plugs in on my computer. What can
>you do but abandon your protocol?
Using standard protocols, it is a 1-1 problem, every
endpoint only needs to know it's own trade secret
information to implement open standard protocols,
and by now most things have done so.
>[snip]
>> Why should you ever be locked into something
>> only available from a single vendor?
>
>Such products are often the *best*, actually; in this industry,
>one often tries to differentiate oneself from ones competitors
>on quality and features.
Or, by doing things that intentionally break the competitors
products...
>> But unless you use standard protocols you won't be able to
>> match them on the other end.
>
>With plug-ins, you can plug in the module for the protocol the
>other end is using. Without them, you just need to make sure
>every 'end' is using the same protocol.
An n x n choice versus an n x 1 choice.
>But it does not matter whether it is an open standard or not;
>proprietary standards work just as well as a 'common
>protocol'.
That depends on the nature of the proprietary standard. Is
it implemented for your target platform? Can it be
implemented? Is there enough published information to
diagnose problems?
>[snip]
>> >Why those two, then?
>>
>> Because they define the standards for public interaction.
>
>So, what they define are standards because they defined
>the standeards for publuch interaction.
>
>Seems a bit circular.
Yes, as are all matters of definition.
>Why the IETF and IEEE and not some *other*
>organization?
Don't forget ISO... These are the organizations that
set public standards. Other organizatons can provide
documentation and standards-conformance testing
for anything any group wants.
>[snip]
>
>However, I would submit that when you posted your
>message, you only gave me one alternative, not
>two: "MS has made a lot of non-standard stuff
>that won't interoperate with other things"; so
>I don't see that there was much to choose from.
There isn't. But pick your own example of what
you think represents Microsoft's 'progress' that
you keep expounding has to be done in non-standard
ways.
>[snip]
>> >You really, honestly, think that people who use IE's extensions
>> >don't mean to?
>>
>> Yes I do think that most do not realize that their work will
>> not display correctly in browsers competing with IE.
>
>Just asking. :D
>
>> >That its all a trick, and that somehow nobody
>> >every *notices* but you?
>>
>> No, I think many people notice - they just don't know what
>> to do about it. After all, if they were expert HTML
>> producers they wouldn't be using FrontPage.
>
>Is that beause there is no other product that non-experts
>can use to make HTML?
No, it is because Microsoft is very good at selling their
products, or bundling them with other products if they
have an ulterior motive to get them on more desktops.
>[snip]
>> When
>> two updated versions connect you get the new capabilities.
>> However, things like the ability to carry attachments
>> do not require protocol changes and will work even across
>> the old transports.
>
>Hmmm? I hate to say this, but carrying attachments does
>mean *some* kind of protocol to say "this bits an attachment";
>if the sender does not know it, it can't attach files. If the
>receive does not know it, it can't decode them.
Ah, that would be a problem for systems that build everything
into one program. On systems were it is easy to manipulate
data through pipes or use files as intermediate storage,
programs other than the mail client can be added to
handle the decoding of attachements and manipulation of
the multimedia parts.
>I think you are mistaken. While transport changes wouldn't
>be requiried, some kind of addition or change the the
>protocols is needed to add attachments to a protocol that
>hasn't got them.
Since the protocol is publicly known, programs to deal with
them can be added without needing any trade secrets. If
the attachment is text, you can just ignore the wrappers
that make it an attachment and view it with any mailer
that knows about text. If it isn't, you can hand it off
to a program that does know about it, or just knows how to
extract the attachment to a file. If the file itself
turns out to be some proprietary format, you are still
screwed, though.
>[snip]
>> >Which, if you have anything to say about it, will not involve
>> >consent!
>>
>> Of course it does. Sort of like consenting to use the
>> existing language if you want to communicate with others.
>> You can make up something no one else understands if you
>> want.
>
>Oh, good. Then you've no objection to Micorosft making up
>their own protocols, or whatnot.
>
>I apologize for insinuating that you felt otherwise.
I do feel that they should be advertised as such, though,
instead of using the same names that others use for
something different (domains, java, html, etc.).
[snip]
>> It is a matter of definition. Standards define
>> interoperation.
>
>This is, of course, where we part company:
>I don't define "interoperation" like this.
>
>But suppose we did. Why should anyone
>*want* to be interoperable, if it is merely
>synonymous with "follows standards"?
So that you remain free to choose the vendor
of the next product you will use. Why would
anyone want to give up this choice by installing
something that does not follow standards?
>> And the standards group for the
>> particular media defines the standard. The wire
>> level protocol seen at the software level is no
>> less critical than at the hardware level. Do you
>> also question the need for standards at the hardware
>> level?
>
>Yup. I don't see why we can't have ISA and PCI and
>Microchannel if we want them all.
You can. But the software you accept would be the
equivalent of a Compaq-PCI that would only accept
cards blessed by Compaq. And a different Dell-PCI
with different cards. Didn't I mention ethernet
before? Would you consider it acceptable to have
to buy every network component from the same vendor
to get them to interoperate at the hardware level?
If not, why is it OK for the software protocols
to have to come from a single vendor?
>I've used many computers which failed to standardize
>this- they had PCI and ISA both, and it was no problem.
>
>The flexibility is useful to have.
But that is not what you are describing for software.
You are allowing one vendor to dictate a proprietary
protocol.
>Saying "everyone must use technology X" is not
>useful- you can't make it happen- and even if it was
>possible, it'd hardly be a good thing.
>
>> Do you think we would be better off if you
>> also had to buy every network component from one vendor
>> to make it work?
>
>Nope. But I don't see that I have to use *your* solution
>to this problem, when I don't think it works as well
>as Microsoft's does.
Buy some non-Intel compatible CPUs and see how well
Microsoft's solution works.
>[snip]
>> >Do they have to be in English too, so you can read them?
>>
>> Being readable doesn't have anything to do with displaying
>> correctly.
>
>I do find *that* a surprising assertion, but lets let it go.
>
>So, non-English is okay. How about non-Roman character
>sets? Many computers do not have Kanji characters
>installed. Web pages using such characters display
>incorrectly; should they be disallowed because on many
>standards-conforming browsers, they will not
>display correctly?
Standards are defined for character sets. If the page
mentions it correctly, then a conforming browser can
be made to display it correctly.
>[snip]
>> >What is your "consenting adults" test then? Why should
>> >I, or anyone, care about it?
>>
>> The parties involved should know exactly what they are
>> doing.
>
>Pretty harsh. Only experts are allowed on your Internet then?
No, just informed consumers.
>> In the case of producing non-conforming web pages
>> this is rarely the case. How many people do you know
>> who intentionaly build a web site to break Netscape?
>> I've seen it done unintentionally.
>
>So you say. There is a middle ground: There are lots
>of people who Just Don't Care (tm).
Even so, I think they should be permitted to know that
they are assisting Microsoft in their evil plan instead
of just thinking they are generating normal web pages.
>[snip]
>> >> Also, if it is allowed to touch native methods not bounded
>> >> by the expected java sandbox security it shouldn't be
>> >> allowed in applets anyway.
>> >
>> >I would expect the browser to enforce that, though.
>>
>> The same browser that permits active-X? Fat chance?
>
>:D You may have something there.
>
>If the browser will not enforce the sandbox, you are just out of
>luck, standard Java or no.
If COM objects are allowed in applets, how can the browser
enforce anything?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:35:42 -0400
Pim van Riezen wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapped some keys and produced:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
> >
> > And my .sig is written they way it is for equally valid reasons, even if
> > they are not immediately clear to you.
>
> Would it be a problem to elucidate this reason? Either that signature is
> intended for people who already know what you have to say (making it
> redundant) or you're trying to convince new people of your standing on
> whatever issue it is that you're trying to get across, in which case you are
> failing at it completely. It might aswell be uuencoded EBCDIC, it would make
> just as much sense to me.
The signature is to "vaccinate" the readership of any newsgroup before
the people listed (Jim Dutton, "Jet Silverman," etc. of USENET
professional
hate factions from starting flame wars in every group I post in.
I have discovered that ... routinely pointing out that the only reason
these people have for writing follow-ups to my posts is for the SOLE
purpose of starting petty arguments.
Since I adopted the policy, they have discovered that people no longer
automatically side with them (as the mention of their names in my
.signature is basically a prediction that... yes, the following idiots
will probably flame me...for no other purpose than that the membership
of their little hate-club has classified me as designated flame-target.
I can take it down, but these people will resume starting flame-wars
and initiating hit-and-run attacks which will fill the newsgroup with
junk... ever-lengthening posts of nothing but junk
Is that what you want?
>
> Pi
>
> --
> I need an enemy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
