Linux-Advocacy Digest #175, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451759 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 07:29:09 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>>'grep' is definately less readable than 'find' or 'search'
>
>learning the name is nothing compared to learning regular expressions.
>
>
>BTW, UNIX also has find.
>
Unix's find is different than DOS find. The DOS find is a stripped-down
version of grep.
--
Microsoft Windows. The joke that kills.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 2 Aug 2000 11:32:26 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:47:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> This softens their impact, but the above still applies.
>
>So? Anything else breeds "class envy" appeals which the socialists
>of both ilk use to manipulate the populace.
I don't see how. You can target taxes at different groups. You are arguing
that taxes that don't targert primarily middle/lower classes are just
for "socialists" ? Get real. Even the republicans support income taxes.
>> If you make a flat amount, it is just plain unfair. Are you trying to
>
>Define "Fair"
If working people are starving because they can't afford to buy food after
paying their taxes while the rich are getting a free ride, that is
certainly not "fair".
>Stipulating that one's tax bill should be based solely on "the
>ability to pay," then you are endorsing the Communist principle
>"FROM EACH according to his abilities" -- i.e. the more 'able'
>you are, the greater amount of OTHER people's burden you are
>expect to carry.
Yes, I am. So what ? Can you name just one succesful modern democracy
that does not in some way embrace this principle ?
>The only thing that is ethical is a "head tax" That is, your
>family pays, say, $10,000 / head, or whatever.
Under your scheme, I would have owed the government $2500 per year.
It is simply absurd to ask people who are working full time to accept
a NEGATIVE amount of income !!! I suppose you would propose something
like indentured servitude so that they can earn their money back...
>It would put Congress on an immediate fiscal diet.
In other words, massive cuts to education and health. People starving and
dyiong because they can't afford health care or food. Hospitals refusing
treatment to people who can't pay in advance. Children from homeless
lower income families unable to get an education simply because they
were born into the wrong family.
The last point is important -- your system is an ANTI-meritocracy, because
the overriding factor in someones success would be who their parents are.
What bugs me about both leftists and rightists is that neither want a
meritocracy. The leftists want everyone equal regardless of merit, and
the wealthy rightists want their kids to land on top of the heirarchy
regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are.
>Define "fair"
>
>Keep in mind that the millionaire uses *LESS* government resources
>than the grad student.
Bullshit. I didn't use govt resources as a grad student. Non citizens are
more or less locked out of government resources.
>Cutting back public services means: cutting back on the kinds of
>things that people should ALREADY be paying for themselves.
Most 6 year olds cannot afford to pay for their education or health. So
you are advocating their parents pay for it. But if this is implemented,
you have an anti-meritocracy -- old money stamps all over young genius.
I suppose this is the desired effect.
>> Both alternatives would move things back to the 19th century kind of scenario
>> -- how much you earn would be predetermined by how much your parents earned,
>
>Providing great incentive for adults to work as opposed to mooching
>off of the gover^H^H^H^H^H TAXPAYERS.
Yes, but their kids don't have much say in the matter. Again, you are arguing
that someone with poor parents has no right to health care or an education.
Barring a kid with poor parents from education is in direct violation of your
supposed "survival of the fittest" principles. The kid could be the next
Einstein, but if their parents can't pay up, that's too bad -- there'll
always be a dumb rich kid who will be able to take the top jobs ( even
if they;'re incapable of doing them )
>> any education at all ) OTOH, the rich kids would be on a gravy train.
>
>Does the concept of private charity and scholarships elude you?
Somewhat. You still don't have a meritocracy. You have something that works
like a meritocracy in exceptional cases, but for the most part looks like
an old money system.
For all your supposed "survival-of-the-fittest" talk, the policies you are
advocating are rather cowardly. What you want is a system whereby the
rich kids have a gauranteed position at the top of the social heirarchy
while the poor kids have a gauranteed position at the bottom. Your
philosophy sounds more like "survival of the fattest"
>> What you'd end up with is an anti-meritocracy, where old money takes
>> precedence over new genius.
>
>Not if income taxes are abolished and replaced with consumption taxes.
This has already been discussed. The end result would be that the rich
people would probably choose to spend less and let their kids inherit.
I don't see how this would reduce the dominance of old money. It smells
to me like a gaurantee that the rich kids end up on top. Which is again
part of a "survival of the fattest" scheme.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 07:36:39 -0400
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>Pete Goodwin escribi�:
>> 'grep' is definately less readable than 'find' or 'search'
>
>search is available, find is something else.
>
>add this in your ~/.bashrc
>
>alias search=grep
>
>And I find "find" more readable than "dir /s".
The Unix equivalent of "dir /s" is "ls -lR", not "find".
The only DOS equivalent to the Unix "find" command is
the DOS port of the GNU version of find.
--
Microsoft Windows. It could be worse, but it'll take time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 07:44:26 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 04:44:51 -0500, John Sanders wrote:
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> Oh, man! You mean I could be typing 'dir' instead of 'ls'? Damn!
>
>Yep. Check your fileutils package ... (-;
>
>What bothers me is having to type "cat". I mean, why type "cat" when I could
>type "dog" instead ?
I've never heard of anyone condogenating files together before.
--
Microsoft Windows: Now complete with a built-in BOFH!
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:43:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> >> I'm sure that you'll enjoy a law that the Soviet Union had had --
> >> >> a law against "parasitism".
> >> >If they truly believed it, then the party leaders would all be
> >> >in the gulags....as they are the biggest parasites in the country.
>
> >> How are they fundamentally worse than most other politicians and
> >> business leaders in this regard?
> >
> >Hey, retard, builder of straw-man arguments....
>
> >What part of "I oppose ALL wealth redistribution programs"
> >do you not understand?
>
> The part where you imply that capitalism isn't a wealth redistribution
> program by not opposing it.
What part of "volountary exchange of goods and services" do you
not understand?
--
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"
J: Loren's 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: "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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:02:10 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:47:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> This softens their impact, but the above still applies.
> >
> >So? Anything else breeds "class envy" appeals which the socialists
> >of both ilk use to manipulate the populace.
>
> I don't see how. You can target taxes at different groups. You are arguing
> that taxes that don't targert primarily middle/lower classes are just
> for "socialists" ? Get real. Even the republicans support income taxes.
>
> >> If you make a flat amount, it is just plain unfair. Are you trying to
> >
> >Define "Fair"
>
> If working people are starving because they can't afford to buy food after
> paying their taxes while the rich are getting a free ride, that is
> certainly not "fair".
How are the "the rich" getting a "free ride" when they are paying
just as much in taxes?
Are you saying that someone should be PUNISHED merely for
having more?
>
> >Stipulating that one's tax bill should be based solely on "the
> >ability to pay," then you are endorsing the Communist principle
> >"FROM EACH according to his abilities" -- i.e. the more 'able'
> >you are, the greater amount of OTHER people's burden you are
> >expect to carry.
>
> Yes, I am. So what ? Can you name just one succesful modern democracy
> that does not in some way embrace this principle ?
Why do you insist upon punishing achievement?
>
> >The only thing that is ethical is a "head tax" That is, your
> >family pays, say, $10,000 / head, or whatever.
>
> Under your scheme, I would have owed the government $2500 per year.
I paid 10x that amount last year, and I'm hardly "rich"
I'm driving a 1989 Geo Spectrum.
> It is simply absurd to ask people who are working full time to accept
> a NEGATIVE amount of income !!! I suppose you would propose something
> like indentured servitude so that they can earn their money back...
>
> >It would put Congress on an immediate fiscal diet.
>
> In other words, massive cuts to education and health.
But if they had more money in their bank accounts, people could
afford to pay for these things directly, without having the
government bureacracy skimming 20% off the top before anything
of value ever happens.
> People starving and dyiong because they can't afford health
> care or food.
If you can't afford food, then you are a useless parasite who
deserves to die. Food is incredibly cheap, and not only that,
you can even GROW YOUR OWN! Doesn't get much cheaper than that.
> Hospitals refusing
> treatment to people who can't pay in advance.
Don't be absurd, it's unbecoming.
> Children from homeless
> lower income families unable to get an education simply because they
> were born into the wrong family.
If they can't afford to support kids, then maybe they shouldn't
be breeding like rabbits.
>
> The last point is important -- your system is an ANTI-meritocracy, because
> the overriding factor in someones success would be who their parents are.
Wrong. You discount the effects of charities.
> What bugs me about both leftists and rightists is that neither want a
> meritocracy.
right-wingers are socialists. I am completely opposed to socialism
in all forms. What I advocate is a *STRICT* meritocracy.
> The leftists want everyone equal regardless of merit, and
> the wealthy rightists want their kids to land on top of the heirarchy
> regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are.
I'm not wealthy, so you just blew your argument.
>
> >Define "fair"
> >
> >Keep in mind that the millionaire uses *LESS* government resources
> >than the grad student.
>
> Bullshit. I didn't use govt resources as a grad student.
That is highly commendable. I wish there were more like you.
> Non citizens are more or less locked out of government resources.
As they should be.
>
> >Cutting back public services means: cutting back on the kinds of
> >things that people should ALREADY be paying for themselves.
>
> Most 6 year olds cannot afford to pay for their education or health. So
> you are advocating their parents pay for it.
Absolutely. If they parents were signing the checks themselves, they
would pay more attention to what the schools are teaching, and whether
they are effective, and DEMAND that miscreants be punished and, if
need be, expelled.
> But if this is implemented,
> you have an anti-meritocracy -- old money stamps all over young genius.
You've never heard of charities and scholarships? They're not only
for college students, you know.
> I suppose this is the desired effect.
Yes. It encourages parents to wake up and start acting as responsible
adults.
>
> >> Both alternatives would move things back to the 19th century kind of scenario
> >> -- how much you earn would be predetermined by how much your parents earned,
> >
> >Providing great incentive for adults to work as opposed to mooching
> >off of the gover^H^H^H^H^H TAXPAYERS.
>
> Yes, but their kids don't have much say in the matter.
THE PARENTS are responsible for their kids, not you, and not me.
> Again, you are arguing
> that someone with poor parents has no right to health care or an education.
If someone is so poor that they can't raise their children, then
maybe they shouldn't be breeding, should they?
>
> Barring a kid with poor parents from education is in direct violation of your
> supposed "survival of the fittest" principles.
Absolutely not. Part of being 'fit' is recognizing the necessity
of making sure that they are educated. Look what we have right now...
mandatory school attendance for all...including the jackasses,
thugs, and felons who
a) don't want to be there
b) disrupt the learning environment
c) terrorize the other students.
> The kid could be the next
> Einstein, but if their parents can't pay up, that's too bad -- there'll
> always be a dumb rich kid who will be able to take the top jobs ( even
> if they;'re incapable of doing them )
What part of "volountarily funded charities" do you not understand?
Besides, in case you haven't notices, the tax-funded schools
are absolute, complete SHIT right now.
>
> >> any education at all ) OTOH, the rich kids would be on a gravy train.
> >
> >Does the concept of private charity and scholarships elude you?
>
> Somewhat. You still don't have a meritocracy. You have something that works
> like a meritocracy in exceptional cases, but for the most part looks like
> an old money system.
Ability attracts money. Go figure.
>
> For all your supposed "survival-of-the-fittest" talk, the policies you are
> advocating are rather cowardly. What you want is a system whereby the
> rich kids have a gauranteed position at the top of the social heirarchy
> while the poor kids have a gauranteed position at the bottom. Your
> philosophy sounds more like "survival of the fattest"
Not at all. If we got rid of the income tax, and replaced it with a
sales tax, the Kennedy dolts would all be in the poorhouse now.
>
> >> What you'd end up with is an anti-meritocracy, where old money takes
> >> precedence over new genius.
> >
> >Not if income taxes are abolished and replaced with consumption taxes.
>
> This has already been discussed. The end result would be that the rich
> people would probably choose to spend less and let their kids inherit.
> I don't see how this would reduce the dominance of old money. It smells
> to me like a gaurantee that the rich kids end up on top. Which is again
> part of a "survival of the fattest" scheme.
The current system encourages the "dominance of old money" even more.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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"
J: Loren's 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: "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: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:20:03 -0400
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0AEh5.1878$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8m411b$i2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <uveh5.11098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> > > heaviest tasks.
> >
> > The PC bus architecture has the I/O throughput for that sort of stuff?
> > The usual tactic is to get a proper mainframe or Sun Enterprise or
> > what-have-you[*], and I've never heard of a port of NT to that size of
> > iron...
> >
>
> Yes, actually, it does. This is proven all the time. Benchmarks head to
head
> against the biggest iron Sun can muster is defeated by Compaq and Dell
boxes
> using Wintel.
>
Hold on a moment there Drestin, the best single box numbers for the x86
architecture are in the 50K range for TPC/C from the ProFusion 8-ways,
that's handily beaten by single box numbers for hi-end UNIX boxes. It will
be interesting to see what can be got from the Unisys 32-way which has the
memory and I/O bandwidth to compete with the hi-end UNIX boxes. But right
now, the single box x86 systems are not in the same league, and the
multi-box TPC/C numbers are not directly comparable.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:23:36 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Drestin Black wrote:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > you are making a poor asumption. I read the entire post (and the posts
> to
> > > the list as well as other articles about this) and am fully aware that
> it's
> > > possible to write a program like this that runs under Windows. Duh...
> >
> > You really are dense, aren't you? Here is a summary of the what was
> said:
> >
> > Drestin:
> >
> > Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below) which
> > will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
> > rendering all data inaccessible.
> >
> > Arthur responded to THIS part of your post with:
> >
> > Windows has had this feature for years. I've
> > had Win95 destroy it's partition table several
> > times, all by itself, with no input from me.
> > I've even had scandisk do it.
> >
> > Drestin:
> >
> > Apparently, however, there are other
> > variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware,
> thus
> > turning it into a true brick.
>
> I didn't write the above.
You quoted it in your post.
>
>
> >
> > Arthur responded to THIS part of your post with:
> >
> > Seems to be a problem in the ATA/IDE spec that
> > allows this. There's no reason Windows couldn't
> > do it either. Note that Linux doesn't actually
> > do this - you have to write and run code to make
> > it happen.
> >
> > Drestin in response to Arthurs post:
> >
> > you missed the point - this doesn't just trash partion tables or make
> data
> > inaccessible - it actually physically destroys the firmware - as in, IDE
> > drive => brick.
>
> No, I understod it perfectly.
>
????. Understood what? You wrote that in response to Arthur. You claimed
he missed the point. He did not.
>
> >
> >
> > This last statement by you clearly indicates that you did not read Arthurs
> post
> > in full, or you simply chose to ignore it. Arthur clearly did understand
> that
> > the firmware could be destroyed.
>
> No, i understood. You are not making any points..
It's like talking to a brick wall!!!
Gary
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:28:31 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Oh, but all three can use it without problems; voila, a netural
> > > > > > > > > format.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Has anybody told you that you are a fucking idiot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it's true, it's true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh god, we can't escape Kurt Angle even on usenet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (THIS JOKE INTENDED FOR WWF FANS. AND IF YOU ARE, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES.
> > > > > > > HINT: It's not just the catch phrase they have in common.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Never watch wresting...I don't even watch TV.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Someone else used in another newsgroup, and I thought it was...poignant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so that it's not totally lost on you, here is a brief explaination.
> > > > > Don't take it too personally, it was meant as a joke.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Angle is a former Olympic gold medal winner that now wrestles in
> > > > > the WWF. He is extremely egotistical. He uses his Olympic gold as his
> > > > > excuse for his ego. He comes out and tells the crowd they are nothing
> > > > > because they don't have 'what it takes' to 'win the gold'. They don't
> > > > > know what it's like to work for something. They just don't understand
> > > > > how hard it is to truly work towards your goals. On and on.
> > > > >
> > > > > He also won a tournament known as King of the Ring and it added to his
> > > > > ego. He considers himself royalty (and feels it is only appropriate,
> > > > > after all, he is an Olympic Gold Medalist) and that everyone around him,
> > > > > including the other wrestlers, are just commoners. He typical goes out
> > > > > of his way to insult someone, or to insult that crowd, and then as he is
> > > > > getting booed, he nods his head, holds out his hands and says, "It's
> > > > > true, it's true!"
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the info.
> > > >
> > > > While not a fan of TV wrestling (gag) he does have a very good point.
> > > >
> > > > *HE* won the gold. *HE* reached the pinnacle of achievement which
> > > > none of his opponents have even come within reach of.
> > >
> > > My point exactly. While you both have a right to be somewhat arrogant
> > > (after all, you have each achieved quite a bit in your own way) and you
> > > are nearly as annoying as he is,
> >
> > Sorry Aaron, I meant to say 'and you aren't nearly as annoying as he is.
> >
>
> No offense taken. I know I'm annoying on USENET....by design.
> (Ask Drestin Adress)
>
Well, at least you post pro-Linux posts in the Linux newsgroup. Drestin
on the other hand...
Annoyance factor: Drestin > Aaron
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451759
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:34:29 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> Aw, pookie, did I say something wrong? ("
Who is that, Tinman?
2> Jumping into conversations again, eh Dave? ("
On what basis do you ask that, Tinman?
2> [snip]
3> No, he's blind--he does not C. ('
Illogical.
4> He likes you Mark, and thinks you're worth his time. ('
On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
5> Of course he takes it that way--it's just Davie's method of inflating
5> his own self worth.
Who is that, Tinman?
5> You were lying when you claimed he wasn't worth any more of your
5> time, how could it be otherwise? You couldn't possibly have been
5> telling the truth.... ("
Witness his continued responses to me, which means that I obviously
am worth his time.
6> That would also suggest that he thinks all those he replies to as
6> reasonable. ('
Illogical, Tinman. There is a difference between replying to someone
and taking their advice.
6> Since he is no longer replying to me,
Incorrect, Tinman, obviously.
6> I can only conclude he no longer thinks me reasonable--
You're erroneously presupposing that I ever thought of you as reasonable,
Tinman.
6> now my feelings are hurt. ('
That's your problem, Tinman.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:31:18 -0500
gLiTcH wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> > "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" wrote:
> > >
> > > If you can get good, free sex from a friend, why pay a whore?
> > >
> > > Ferdinand
> > >
> > > Tony Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone here think that Linux will become more popular if Windows and
> > > > every other Microsoft app goes to a rent basis?
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> >
> > I know I'll get booed, but what the hell:
> >
> > Cause the whore is a pro, and probably knows how to do things that your
> > friend providing free sex doesn't. Of course, these are the things that
> > cause heart-attacks and strokes (hmmm, I drew the analogy to Windows
> > even better than I thought I could). And let's not forget the great
> > array of diseases provided by the whore.
> >
>
> I guess morals isn't a question anymore huh? If so then neither the friend nor
> the whore would be an option. But then again in this day and age everyone likes
> to make their own morals so in their mind they are perfect.
>
> good joke though about the windows analogy
Thanks, it was meant as a joke. And, just in case you haven't picked it
up from my other posts, I am a happily married man and would never step
outside of that relationship for sex. Morals are very important to me,
but when I'm kidding around....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
