Linux-Advocacy Digest #419, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:34:00 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >You act the way you do because you were born in the late 20th century.
> >> >Ethically speaking, in principle, you hold no higher ground from a
> >> >cannibal, or a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
> >>
> >> That's a rather dubious and post-modernist contention, if you ask me.
> >> In other (more straightforward) words, that's bullshit. Yes, a typical
> >> person born in the late 20th century holds a higher ethical ground, as
> >> it were, than a cannibal, a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
> >
> >Ok, let's restrict ourselves to one of the examples given.
> >
> >Why are you ethically superior to a cannibal?
>
> Which cannibal? I'm not going to put my real ethical judgement up
> against an abstraction. All else being equal, I would be less ethical
> if I considered it was my right to kill and eat other people.
A cannibal that is basically just like you, except that if he happened
to be hungry, and a dead person is for sale at the butcher's, (dead
person who died of natural causes), he would buy and eat that dead
person.
Now, are you ethically superior? Why?
[snip]
> >> Because we have their examples to learn from. If we do not, then we
> >> hold no higher ground, obviously. If we recognize that the inquisition
> >> was *wrong*, and do whatever is in our power to avoid such unethical
> >> occurrences, then it is not a denigration of our ancestors nor
> >> over-glorification of our modern 'sensibilities', but a mere recognition
> >> that we have more ability to learn how to act ethically than
> >> pre-technical societies did.
> >
> >No "more ability to learn", but simply more to learn from.
>
> Correct. Do I *blame* the cannibal for being less ethical? Of course
> not. Does that mean they are not less ethical? Perhaps to a
> relativist, perhaps not to an absolutist. Being a realist, I'd have to
> say it isn't that simple.
You said you were not going to judge an abstract cannibal, please don't.
> [...]
> >> And were we them, we would do as they did, you are saying.
> >
> >In all likelyhood.
>
> In all likelihood, if I had your DNA, and precisely your experience, I
> would be you. Does that worry you?
No. What is the connection with the current argument?
> >> Which might
> >> be true (though it requires an argument against free will, AFAIK)
> >
> >Not guaranteed that each individual would, but a good probability
> >that a large percentage would, just like not all of them did.
>
> So are you willing to argue that humans don't have free will, yet?
Individually, yes, statistically, not.
> [...]
> >If someone, knowing that was not the will of god, actually tricked
> >people into joining the inquisition, then by all means that person
> >is ethically responsible for all the misdeeds of the inquisition.
> >
> >Now, who would that person be?
>
> Unfortunately, I'm afraid we'd have to say "everyone who accepted that
> they were aware of the will of God". Seeing as how there isn't a God,
Bzzt, proof by assertion, the rest is discarded for starting from
a flawed premise. You are not doing it any better, by asserting the
nonexistance of God, than they did by asserting the opposite.
> and at least some people who profess to believing in God know that, but
> continue to say they believe otherwise for self-serving reasons, then
> one can presume that there was at least one person who knew that no
> divine communications had ever taken place, and they were making it up
> to justify their actions. Are you saying that since we can't examine
> the perpetrators of the Inquisition in a modern court, we cannot pass
> judgement on the Inquisition as morally and ethically wrong?
>
> >> Do I "blame" medieval people for not being skeptical as I am, given the
> >> great amount of verifiable information supporting my skepticism
> >> available to me in a technological society? Of course not. I merely
> >> note it, and recognize that it gives me a higher ethical perspective
> >> than they had available to them easily.
> >
> >Sure.
>
> So why are you arguing against this, if you are so willing to agree to
> it?
Think hard.
> Was it *merely* the possibility that whoever was 'passing
> judgement' on historical injustices thought they were 'specially endowed
> with reason', or was it perhaps an effort to dissuade someone from
> engaging in reason in order to support a post-modern stance which denies
> our ability to make ethical judgements at all?
Yikes, no.
> The original statement was essentially identical, I believe; we are
> 'more ethical', or, as I put it here, have "a higher ethical
> perspective", than our less knowledgable ancestors.
The point you miss is the "than they had available to them easily.".
We just learned more, and it was not our merit at all.
> [...]
> >> No, its the human beings *doing* the censoring that *were*, in fact,
> >> *more evil* than we in a *very meaningful* way. Are we some sort of
> >> cosmic court, censuring errors like a congress denouncing scientific
> >> research for political soap-boxing? I don't think so. But your
> >> insistence of 'cultural relativism' smacks a bit too much of
> >> post-modernism to me.
> >
> >Blah. I'm quite a non pos-modernist and not deconstructivist.
>
> There's nothing wrong with being deconstructivist. It is the most
> appropriate approach to most philosophical issues, in fact. It is the
> post-modernist method of using deconstructionist rhetoric to fuel
> arguments from ignorance which is problematic.
>
> BTW, how would you define post-modernist, and where did you learn of it?
This is as good a definition as I have seen (in a perverted way):
http://www.ukans.edu/~medieval/melcher/matthias/t70/0028.html
Basically, I just read an awful lot.
> [...]
> >> I don't know. I think we've mixed up just who was being "censored".
> >> "Censor" is when you suppress publication of someone's work. Nailing
> >> them to a pole by their tongue in the public square for heresy doesn't
> >> seem to fit that description.
> >
> >Erm, doesn't censure has another meaning in english?
>
> Yes, but I'm not sure what was "censure versus censor", and what was a
> typo.
>
> >> >The difference between martirdom and justice is often one
> >> >of perspective.
> >>
> >> At the very least, you are confusing in what you're trying to say.
> >> Perhaps that's because it doesn't really make much sense?
> >
> >Perhaps you just don't get it?
>
> Perhaps. Given the fact that your position and defense seems very
> similar to several other's I've seen in the past, it isn't very likely.
> But it is possible.
>
> There's every possibility, in fact, that we agree almost entirely. If
> you hadn't jumped in to prevent what you saw as social relativism, I
> might have done so myself (but for the fact that this is all rather
> grossly off-topic). I'm quite fond of pointing out that were we in
> someone else's shoes, we might well make the same "wrong" choices they
> make, and that may be all you meant to do.
That was the main point, really.
> But I'm not going to claim that no ethical judgements can be made,
Throw a "universal" in there, and you will be closer to what I
say.
> or that whether something is wrong is entirely and solely a matter of
> whether it matches one person's moral or ethical values.
Since I consider the concept itself of unqualified "wrong" to be
problematic, I won't discuss its application to actions.
> >> I don't mean
> >> to sound insulting; you just don't seem very clear in what you're trying
> >> to say. Are you saying the same act is one or the other from two
> >> different perspectives? That killing a martyr is justice?
> >
> >Depending on perspective, what seemed justice may become martirdom
> >and viceversa.
>
> Certainly, but I refuse to buckle under the weight of the necessity to
> differentiate between reality and retroactive explanations of reality.
>
> >For instance, suppose that in 100 years, death penalty becomes as
> >morally repugnant as burning witches. Then, all those executed
> >today would become martirs of the fight against executions.
>
> I don't consider every victim a martyr. Perhaps I just don't have the
> stomach for "moral" crusades.
>
> >OTOH, Hitler's suicide must have looked as martirdom to Goebbels.
>
> Goebbel's opinion on the matter is rather suspect, considering the lack
> of ethics and morality which non-deranged humans observe in his
> behavior.
It doesn't make any difference for the argument.
> >> That justice requires martyrs, and so the persecutors of martyrs
> >> are acting "correctly"?
> >
> >Yuck, no.
>
> So you aren't afraid to retroactively redefine morality (or whether
> someone is a martyr, at least),
I don't redefine retroactively. I redefine from now on, and apply
my morality to events of the past. What I don't do is assume that
because i redefined my morality everyone else should have had
that new definition since the dawn of time. That is the sin of
the moral absolutist, really.
> but you find a utilitarian explanation for oppression to be
> objectionable?
Indeed.
> You can stomach the idea of a mass-murderer being a martyr for
> cruel and unusual punishment,
Yup. For a non religious way of martirdom, perhaps.
> but the idea that the church was acting correctly when they
> persecuted Galileo is repugnant? But, weren't you the one who
> said almost precisely that?
I never said correctly. Please abstain from putting words in my
posts.
> [...]
> >> That a supposedly "morality-based" organization of any stripe which
> >> preaches peace and "turning the other cheek" which seems all too quick
> >> to default to "an eye for an eye" and ancestral retribution has got no
> >> moral or ethical grounds to stand on, really.
> >
> >Well, the inner contradictions of doctrine are a real problem.
>
> Only if you pay any attention at all to 'doctrine', which seems
> self-defeating to me. When there are inner contradictions, then the
> doctrine is flawed and unsupportable. No problem.
Well, sometimes, depending on why you adopted the doctrine in
the first place, you can't just throw it away.
> [...]
> >> >> > That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
> >> >> > hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
> >> >>
> >> >> And what basis did they have for such beliefs?
> >> >
> >> >Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
> >> >be beliefs otherwise.
> >>
> >> Which is to say none. Granted, they had little other information
> >> besides the beliefs of others to go on. Well, that, and things like
> >> empirical knowledge.
> >
> >What was the empirical knowledge about the fate of immortal souls?
>
> What was the empirical knowledge that there was an immortal soul?
According to the historical record accepted at the time, a man of
superhuman powers said it existed.
> >> Are we to ignore the lesson of evil simply because
> >> we recognize that everyone generally *believes* they are right? This
> >> seems to make the lesson all the more important to learn, don't you
> >> think? Denying it with cultural relativism is to miss the point
> >> entirely.
> >
> >Yawn. Noone (except a few) believes to be evil. That should teach us
> >that blindly following our beliefs of what is good is dangerous.
> >If everyone knew that, then we would have much less dangerous
> >do-gooders. Like inquisitors.
>
> Quite so. And so, in stating that we are "on ethically higher ground"
> than barbarians is not prideful relativism, but enlightened observation,
Well, prideful relativism it sure isn't. It reeks of crypto absolutism,
looked from here.
> and encourages ethical behavior, rather than encourages believing that
> we can blindly follow what we believe is good.
You have a serious problem with this position. You say you are on
ethically
higher ground from anyone else. EVERYONE thinks the same thing! You are
avoiding the dangers of blindingly following the beliefs of others, only
to blindly follow your own belief.
Let's put it this way: no moral relativist ever bothered enough about
other's beliefs to start a religious war.
> [...]
> [...]
> >> >Ok, how about this: we may be destroying the world for the future
> >> >generations.
> >> >In a way, that's a genocide much larger than anything in the crusades or
> >> >whatever, since it may destroy ALL humanity, and no human moral system
> >> >that I know of considers that evn remotely ethical.
> >>
> >> We may not. That's the conundrum of ethics. Let us not ignore the
> >> lessons of history on the matter.
> >
> >I can shoot you because I may or may not hurt you?
>
> Again, you wish to ignore knowledge; you know very well you may hurt me,
> and so it is unethical for you to shoot me. Now if you can show such a
> straightforward causal link between social actions and future harm, you
> will have the "ethical high ground" in arguing against or for social
> actions which you wish to support.
Cool. Since two years ago, sunbathing south of Bah�a Blanca (and that
is not very south) is way too dangerous because of UV radiation.
That is causally connected to CFC emmissions. We dumped the CFC.
Now, according to you, we are now guilty even if we didn't believe
at the time to be doing wrong (for a large part of the time, we did
not).
[snip]
> [...]
> >> Let's not. Its a completely inappropriate label. I see your point, but
> >> question just what you think "judge" means in this regard. Are you back
> >> to trying to say the inquisition and such were ethically, or even
> >> morally, "right" or "good" except through the most tortuous "if they
> >> hadn't happened"-type scenario?
> >
> >I never said "good".
>
> Why is that?
Because the word didn't express what I wanted to say.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:32:42 -0500
Chris Lee wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >m just saying I don't want it to happen.
> >
> >As for your alienates CLI fans comment, I was speaking on the premise
> >that there are a huge number of computer illiterate people that have an
> >*interest* in Linux at the moment. These people are saying that the GUI
> >should be integrated in the kernel, that Corel has the best distro ever,
> >and that everything should be *just like Windows*. These are the people
> >I am speaking against. There are some concepts that can be 'borrowed'
> >from Windows. I'm not so against Windows that I fail to see the few
> >good ideas that are present. I just don't want Linux to turn into a
> >Windows clone. Am I really such an idiot for saying that?
>
> Yes, because the people you are talking about have *ZERO* influnce over the
> direction Linux goes in. They can scream all they want, but it doesn't mean
> we have to listen to them.
>
> This is what is so great about linux and bsd. The Jerry Pournells of the
> world along with the ZDNET shills can bitch and moan about how hard to
> use linux and bsd are and it won't make a wit of difference as the past
> couple of years of growth have shown
Enough people bitch and the Linux developers listen. That's partly the
beauty of Linux, but it could be the downfall of it as well. That's all
I'm saying. We have all of those people bitching for 'thier' needs,
let's bitch for our needs so that it isn't one sided. Is that really a
problem, or are only the people clamouring for change allowed to speak
on this issue?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:45:54 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> [...]
> >The mere declaration of an action as universally wrong is the telltale
> >sign of the moral absolutist, because otherwise, what is the meaning
> >of "doing wrong"?
>
> The meaning of "doing wrong" is ethical and local, even if the
> terminology used might seem to transcend that scope.
Then fix your terminology. How do you expect to communicate when you
abuse terms?
> One tell-tale sign
> of the post-modernist is when they gratuitously insist that somebody
> (besides themselves) have made reference to something being "universally
> wrong" merely because they aren't deferring to wholesale cultural
> relativism.
Pfft.
> >> There is no consideration of "who's perspective" in the ethical question
> >> of whether the church persecution of free thinkers was wrong, IMHO. It
> >> was, and that mirrors the consensus of the most authentic opinions, I
> >> think, and is hardly debatable (and you are indeed debating it, by
> >> suggesting the consideration of 'their perspective').
> >
> >Well, ask me: would you have preferred that they didn't do it? and
> >I will answer "of course".
> >
> >Ask me "would you do it?" and I will answer: no.
> >
> >Ask me "was it wrong?" and I will say: "I BELIEVE it was wrong".
>
> So you're willing to quibble,
Always.
> but not to recognize that we merely
> inhabit reality, we do not literally create it?
We inhabit reality, and we create small chunks of it.
> You seem to feel quite
> insecure with the idea that we do create and are entirely limited by our
> perception of reality, but we do not create the universe by merely
> thinking that it exists.
I have never claimed to be a solipsist. Since solipsism produces
no practical effects, I have decided to ignore it.
> The sentence "It is wrong" is semantically
> identical to "I believe it is wrong",
No. "it is wrong" can mean:
a) I believe it is wrong compared to my standards of correctness.
b) I believe it is wrong when compared to some universal standard
of correctness.
In a discussion like this, it is very important to know which one,
because b) implies the existence of such a standard, and the possibility
of applying it to any action performed by anyone, thus opening the
door to moral absolutism, which in the end leads to religion.
> but for the unstated delusion
> (which nobody I've seen post here seems to hold) that the concept
> 'wrong' somehow transcends morality or ethics and has physical influence
> on reality.
Who would believe such a strange and unnecessary thing?
> >> From "their"
> >> view, the moral question has no meaning; the church gets to "redefine
> >> the standard", as it were, of what is right or wrong.
> >
> >Yup. That makes it specially hard for them.
>
> No, it shows that they have no moral or ethical grounding by nature.
> What they do is right or wrong based on the action itself and its affect
> on others. "Noble intent" is only a qualifier when one is being
> consistent with ones ideals. If you are willing to change your ideals
> to whatever is most convenient for justifying your most self-serving
> actions, then you are merely paying lip service to morality and ethics,
> and have little chance of being either moral or ethical in the end.
And here you implicitly say that the church is/was willing to do that.
> >> That you can
> >> 'reverse engineer' it into some noble social responsibility is rather
> >> unnerving.
> >
> >It would be, if I did.
>
> You have.
No.
> Your argument that the church evidenced some social justice
> in preventing "heretics" from disseminating scientific ideas is just
> that.
Oh, my goodness. You have not understood a word I said :-P
I have never said such a thing.
> >> Although it is certainly not inappropriate as a line of
> >> reasoning, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
> >
> >This is an experiment in thought. Think. Don't be afraid.
>
> Ha. That's positively ironic. I thought I was clear from the way I
> phrased it that it is not fear, but boredom, which prevents me from
> pursuing such a line of reasoning.
After what I just read, I would blame incomprehension.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:48:29 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >I just have no idea of what you are saying. Are you saying my answer was
> >not an accurate answer to your question? How am I supposed to answer to
> >"was he mistaken?" if not by "yes, he was"?
>
> It is lost in the mist of time, Roberto. I don't have time or patience
> to backtrack to review your pedantic point.
If you are not willing to answer the questions, don't reply to the
posts.
If you don't want others to answer your questions, don't ask them.
If the answer to your question id correct and useless, your question
is badly formulated.
> Suffice it to say that some
> answers are technically correct, and still not simply useless, but
> wrong, within the context of the discussion.
Suffice to say that you are willing to say anything, as long as
its insulting.
> >> I didn't insult you for answering; I insulted
> >> you for pretending to answer while providing no useful information.
> >
> >So, I was just pretending to answer. You are a gem. I suppose
> >you are just pretending to post, too.
>
> Perhaps.
Perhaps you are more stupid than I expected. I honestly believed you
were just ignorant.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:00:07 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > People can bitch all they want, and the rivers will keep flowing
> > downhill :-)
>
> until the U.S. Army corp of engineers build dams, install flow regulators
> and pumps to make the water flow to reverse it normal course because enough
> moron with influence wanted it that way.
Hitting metaphor in the head doesn't turn it into a nail, even if all
you
have is a hammer ;-)
> > I have NEVER seen this. Where did you see it?
>
> Take a look in the back posts in alt.linux, take a look at the industry rags
> and take a look at a thread in this NG that you were a part of a little
> while back.
Again, I have never seen anyone advocate the integration of the GUI
into the kernel, at least not by anyone who knows what the two words
mean.
> > Why? ignore them. They did nothing to you. If they want that, then
> > someone
> > will provide it to them. You want something else, and probably someone
> > will provide that something else to you.
> >
> > Now, preventing them from getting their clone does nothing to advance
> > the
> > state of the system YOU want. It's just pointless elitism.
>
> It is not elitism any more than you living in a house built by your family
> you are comfortable in it. Then outsiders who are not your neighbors come
> along and start demanding that you home has to be changed into something you
> don't like, just to attract more people to you neighborhood. You can just
> ignore them, right?
If all those outsiders did was put shows on one TV channel about that,
sure. Bad metaphors are no substitute for argument.
[snip yet more housing stuff]
> > And finally: if you feel you are not being provided what you want,
> > get your hands dirty and create it. Free software is not a spectators
> > sport.
>
> But we have what we want, we are happy with it. What we don't want it to
> have it taken away.
I suppose the evil stormtroopers will knock at your door any minute to
take away your CDs?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:02:57 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Could you give an example of something that "alienates CLI fans" yet is
> > hard
> > to disable for them?
>
> Bring up Corel again, is a perfect example.
Disabling corel's distribution entirely is trivial. Don't install it
or don't keep it.
> It is not the issue that users
> that are comfortable with the command line would be bothered. It is an
> example of any sysadmin being relgated to being a subordinate OS.
Parse error. How can a sysadmin become a OS?
> That
> makes no difference if the users and the sysadmin are users of the CLI or X
> or both, the computer should respect the authority humans. The computer may
> try to probe the hardware, but if it finds something not right it may ask
> the sysadmin for guidence, but no more than that. What every configuration
> that the sysadmin establishes must be honor reguardless of the determination
> of the computer that it could be invalid.
Sure. Trivial to do, and will always (until something very big happens
to PC hardware) be trivial to do. No biggie.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:57:53 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> That's OK. I don't really mind insults hardly at all. Particularly
> >> ones like that, which strike me as quite humorous (more condescension,
> >> as I chuckle while someone calls me a fuck-wit.) "Thanks for the
> >> memories bitch?" I love it. ;-)
> >>
> >> No, its the ad hominem attacks I can't stand. Insults are no problem.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. Dipshit. ;-)
> >>
> >> [I'm laughing with you, Nate, I hope, not at you; honest. I promise.]
> >>
> >
> >Question for the entire group:
> >
> >Has anyone ever wondered why they make it possible for you to ignore
> >someone on usenet, yet they don't make it possible for you to make
> >someone ignore you?
>
> That's trivial, Nate. They do. Just stop posting, and I'll have no
> trouble ignoring you. Or better yet, get a sense of humor, and stop
> posturing.
You know, it's funny, with all the idiots in this group, you are the
only one I have a personal problem with. I wonder why that is?
This is the point of my previous post. If I'm in a crowded room and see
someone coming that I know I'm going to punch in face if they get too
close, I can walk away. Here, I don't have that choice. I'm either
forced to put up with your shit, or not 'talk' with anyone. Ah, very
'funny' isn't it?
I think I have a pretty good sense of humor. But I fail to find the
humor in any of your posts. You say you don't like ad hominem attacks,
yet that seems to be your modus oporandia. Yet another of your little
hypocracies. In fact, that's where my original disagreement with you
started. And I have yet to find out (from you) what the hell you meant
by the attacks you initiated. And until I do, I can only assume you
truly believe I'm a lazy, stupid, incompetent, poor troubleshooting,
moron.
You are right about one thing though. If I had met you in real life and
had the same conversation we had here, I would have been extremely
tempted to sock you in the gut. But, as is my nature, I probably would
have just walked away. You're not worth the jail time.
--
[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
******************************
