Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #28 Sat, 19 Aug 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Switch to NT? (Tom Backer Johnsen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Colin R. Day")
Re: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775 (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Backer Johnsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 06:15:12 +0200
Courageous wrote:
>
> > What I'm looking for are compelling reasons for not using MS Office and
> > NT.
>
> There really aren't any to speak of, presuming you don't
> categorically rule out Unix back-ends where needed. Before
> you go paying for M.S. Office, however, can I recommend
> that you check out Star Office? It's fairly full-featured,
> and it's open-sourced.
... And it can read and write MS Office documents, which is what you
need. Another (but "owned" in the same sense as MS Office) alternative
is WordPerfect Office, cheaper, leaner, reads and writes office
documents as well
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 19 Aug 2000 04:20:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JS/PL) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
8<SNIP>8
>I have notified your ISP nbn.net and newsfeeds.com. Monday I will
>contact the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I do not take death threats
>very lightly.
Let me know if you need anyone to back you up on this.
I don't like people who toss around casual threats
either, and seeing the two of them get their asses
in a sling would bring me a bit of satisfaction.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
| | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
|_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:22:56 -0400
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, you did realize that the mess that is UNIX
> >> in general was because of "industry support" in
> >> the first place, didn't you?
> >
> >UNIX is closed source, hence it invites fragmentation.
>
> I disagree. I think closed source makes it easier
> to create standards that get accepted over others,
> and eventually become the norm. In the beginning
> closed source standards can be messy, but after a
> while, "the best man wins", and everyone else
> eventually, more or less, follows suit.
>
Why does closed source make it easier to create standards?
And does the best man win?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 19 Aug 2000 04:24:51 GMT
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:05:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project.
That is an outright lie. KDE is free software. Even RMS agrees that
QT satisfies the definition of free software, despite his misgivings
about that license.
> They're trying to
>leverage free software for their own private gain;
How so ? Whose "private gain" ? Are you trying to argue that Roberto has
a secret agenda to release his software under a proprietary license when
no-ones looking ?
> GNOME rules. Any
>ideas KDE can come up with, GNOME can replicate.
WHy reinvent the wheel ? If they can't do anything but clone KDE, they're
wasting their time IMO.
>The only thing they have is the talent of their programmers. I refuse
>to impugn Roberto's programming capability due to his opinion. He isn't
>working for a big commercial software developer, maybe, but that just
>means he's an amateur whore.
How so ?
I use QT -- because it's the best GUI toolkit available. Not that you'd
know, since your knowledge about programming seems to stop somewhere
around amateur BASIC programming.
Does the fact that I use QT make me a "whore" ? Should I just use GTK like
a good little GNU/zealot even if GTK lacks the documentation, and stability
that QT offers ?
>the investors who pay Roberto were confident in their product, they'd
I'm confused. Are you saying that Roberto develops QT ? ( he doesn't )
>admit that the only reason they'd need to keep any of their code
>'commercial' is because they want to profiteer, and can't be satisfied
>with simple honest profits on their production.
What do you mean by "simple honest profits on their production" ? I mean
it boils down to what do you mean by "production" ?
>Kill the proprietary library licensing and KDE will work just fine.
QT is free software, by any reasonable definition.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:38:46 -0400
Tim Cain wrote:
> >>And do you think that the minimal numbers of users supporting it are going
> to
> >>continue to work for free? Someone has to pay the piper eventually.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean here; could you elucidate?
>
> What he means, chump, is that programmers would like to be able to eat and
> pay the rent.
>
> Simple enough for you?
So is Steve Mentzer claiming that Open Source programmers are homeless
and starving? Has anyone seen Linus cadging change?
>
>
> Tim.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:46:02 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I noticed that on the redhat beta site, there's RPM 4, and gcc 2.96. But
> these aren't available anywhere else. Is this a new version of gcc that
> the gcc maintainers don't know about ? What about RPM 4 ? ( which is not
> available on rpm.org ) I'd like
> to get hold of a newer gcc, because 2.95 is having fits ( internal
> compiler errors ) with some of my C++ code
>
> The reason I care about RPM is that I can't unpack the gcc rpm without
> rpm 4 ( which is apparently only available in rpm ! argggh ! )
You should be able to use a previous version of rpm to open
rpm 4.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:05:47 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks! I don't know if he's serious or demonstrating incredible stupidity.
I'll let his home state's "DOJ" sort it out.
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nl1ug$3eb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JS/PL) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> >I have notified your ISP nbn.net and newsfeeds.com. Monday I will
> >contact the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I do not take death threats
> >very lightly.
>
> Let me know if you need anyone to back you up on this.
> I don't like people who toss around casual threats
> either, and seeing the two of them get their asses
> in a sling would bring me a bit of satisfaction.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
> | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> | -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
> | | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
> |_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:11:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>The mere fact that the court found it "weighty" and "pertinent" that the
>>work was software and not any old literary work is a cogent argument for
>>my point (contrary to Lee Hollaar, Resident Expert's opinion) that the
>>functionality of software might not be protected by software, but is
>>very relevant to software's copyright protection.
>
>I assume you mean "the functionality of software might not be protected
>by copyright". What you wrote is pretty obscure otherwise.
Uh... yea.
>Of course functional aspects of any copyrighted work is not protected
>by copyright. That's true of software, or lamps with statutes as their
>base. And of course, that makes functionality relevant to copyright
>protection.
>
>Software isn't unique in that respect. It's just that it comes up more
>often with software.
>
>And I doubt that I said otherwise ...
No, but you continue to indicate otherwise by saying so. Functional
aspects of software are *integrally and fundamentally important to the
protection of software under copyright*. Why is it you want so hard to
deny that fact? Is it *just* because you learned "functional aspects
are not protected by copyright" as a mantra, and have never bothered to
think any harder about the matter?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:11:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >I have no clue what happened in Roswell. It was probably just
>> >military activity of some sort. But I doubt anyone will ever
>> >sort out the multiple revisions of history that have occurred
>> >since the first sighting. [...]
>>
>> Actually, a truly amazing job has been done. Check out
>> http://www.csicop.org and their publication *Skeptical Enquirer* for
>> details. These are people who have tracked down the specific person who
>> must have been "the red haired nurse" from original stories and such,
>> and have ruthlessly deconstructed just where the multiple revisions of
>> "history" have occurred in modern space-alien mythology.
>
>Yes. I've seen several documentaries on Roswell on A&E and History
>Channel. On one hand, there is one school that presumes that we are
>the only intelligent form of life in the universe and that we COULDN'T
>have been visited by aliens, at the other end of the spectrum, you have
>people who claim to be abducted by aliens.
The TV documentaries simply do not do justice to the detail of the
research performed, Rex. Your 'spectrum' might be valid, but the folks
who have proven that Roswell was a bunch of balloons, a test dummy or
two (a decade later), and a lot of confabulation are not anywhere near
the "Couldn't" end. The "haven't" end is not in denial; it is simply
rational.
Any qualified psychologists can recognize that "abduction by aliens" is
the same scientifically recognized delusions caused by "sleep paralysis"
that caused goblin, ghoul, and daemon visitations to pre-scientific
people.
>I tend to think that Aliens wouldn't find this planet particularly
>interesting. We're at the edge of a galaxy in "the sticks", and
>even the hassle of exploring this far out would be a pain. Until
>about 5 years ago we didn't know if there were other star systems
>with planets. With the space telescope, we no know there are many
>stars with planets.
One of which is a mere 10.5 light-years from earth. It's a Jovian-type
planet, as all such discoveries are (it takes a lot of planet to
"wiggle" a star in space as it zooms around the galactic core.)
>This tends to increase the odds that there
>would be SOME intelligent life out there. But anyone capable of
>space travel would consider us too privitive and violent to risk
>unneccessary contact.
>
>Especially if they watch WWF Wrestling and read usenet news :-).
Anyone who is capable of *interstellar* space travel in the Enstienian
universe we live in would know that any sentient life is a needle in a
haystack. The question is whether we'd be able to recognize them, and
they us, from some large-scale ant-farm or a particularly bizarre
fungus.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:11:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>The entire reason BASIC was developed was to provide rudimentary
>>programming constructs which were familiar to those unfamiliar with
>>programming languages.
>
>Yes. Basic was essentially a type of shell script, and essentially
>made it easy for users to string commands together.
No, that's not it at all. BASIC was designed as a language optimally
accessible by those who *don't* already know programming, and no amount
of insistence by those who know how to program that it isn't will change
that fact.
>Shell script was intended to do the same thing -- ordinary users could
>automate things by putting commands in files. Shell script was basically
>the same as the command line, with a few control structures added.
BASIC is the optimal syntax, shell scripts (with middleware
capabilities, still generally lacking) are the optimal mechanism. I am
not suggesting that anyone literally put them together, but might that
be such a bad idea? In the abstract, certainly, making shell scripting
more accessible *in practice*, rather than theoretically, would
certainly increase the acceptance of Unix among end users.
[...]
>There are a number of criteria I could propose for deciding what syntax
>is and isn't "intuitive". FYI, by these criteria, perl, and the C family
>don't score that well.
>
>The problem is that I don't see many things about basic that makes it
>substantially nicer than tcl or python. Syntax-wise.
Your ability, as one who already knows these various syntax, is what
makes it problematic for you to say. 'Intuitive' is a matter of
familiarity more than anything else (and I contend to the exclusion of
everything else to the point where it becomes the very definition of the
term).
>>insist that, lacking them, I am "unsupported" in my assertion, but that
>>smacks more of an argument from ignorance than a coherent presentation
>>of an opposing opinion.
>
>Well I am ignorant of the criteria that you use to conclude that basic
>is more intuitive, which is why I am requesting that you explain to us
>why you feel that basic is more "intuitive". So far, your only explanation
>is that it's more "intuitive" because it's more familiar to you than
>other languages.
The fact that it was designed to be 'merely' intuitive, rather than
functional, is the basis of my contention that BASIC is more intuitive.
Given the problem I've illustrated, that those who know are incapable of
properly defining the perspective of those who don't know, I can't see
any other way to judge such things. I appreciate, and in fact thank
you, for noting that it is partially due to the fact that I am
personally more familiar with BASIC than with alternative syntax that I
champion it in this regard. To be honest, I don't give a fuck about
BASIC. I just want the accessability of rudimentary automation to be
subject to the requirement for higher levels of understanding; it isn't
necessary, it isn't acceptable, and it isn't called for.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:11:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said T. Max Devlin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>And if you demand exorbitant fees for using what everyone
>else can get for free, you are more than entitled, you are civilly
>responsible, to sue them for anti-competitive business practices
>according to anti-trust laws.
I trust that most people will realize that I meant to invert that, and
the one having the exorbitant fees demanded of them is the one who
should sue on anti-trust grounds. But you never know. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:20:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >> > Let me guess. You are a Linux fanatic. You hide it so well. I'm
>just
>> >> > waiting for one of you psycho Line folks like Kulkis to mount a
>grassy
>> >knoll
>> >> > outside the Redmond campus and REALLY stand up for your cause. Then
>the
>> >>
>> >> Don't tempt me. Gates has destroyed so many lives that he has
>> >> sacrificed any right to his own.
>> >
>> >Are you saying you are tempted to kill someone, namely Bill Gates? Please
>> >expound on the threat. Who do you want to kill?
>>
>> Personally, I'd probably want to kill JS/PL, first. I want to kill
>> JS/PL. Did you get that? Would you like me to repeat it?
>>
>> Hahahaha. :-) I'm with Aaron, actually. If someone took out Bill
>> Gates, the only ethical considerations I would worry about is whether it
>> might have the tendency to make that lying cheating despicable bastard
>> (or "poor man", alternately) some sort of martyr.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
>> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
>> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>I have notified your ISP nbn.net and newsfeeds.com. Monday I will contact
>the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I do not take death threats very lightly.
Oh, like we didn't see that coming. Like you won't be laughed at by
everyone else as much as you are on Usenet. Ha. Maybe this will be the
'end' of you, as well. Haha.
;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:22:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JS/PL) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>>I have notified your ISP nbn.net and newsfeeds.com. Monday I will
>>contact the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I do not take death threats
>>very lightly.
>
>Let me know if you need anyone to back you up on this.
>I don't like people who toss around casual threats
>either, and seeing the two of them get their asses
>in a sling would bring me a bit of satisfaction.
Ah, but at least you have a real identity. This 'JS/PL' person is
certainly not going to get any much more attention in real life than it
does on Usenet (or better yet, he does, and we get to find out who he
is), and I noticed *you* didn't go to the authorities.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 05:18:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> Here's today's Amodeo digest. Starting around item #6,
>
> > "Frankly, I don't care."
> > - Dave Tholen
>
> "You believe the ego of this guy?"
> --Marty Amodeo
>
> "What an ego! He never ceases to astound me with his bloated sense
> of self-worth."
> --Marty Amodeo
"Non sequitur."
- Dave Tholen
> Of course you don't care to admit to your illogic, Marty.
"What alleged illogic?"
- Dave Tholen
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:25:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Thanks! I don't know if he's serious or demonstrating incredible stupidity.
>I'll let his home state's "DOJ" sort it out.
>
>
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nl1ug$3eb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JS/PL) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> 8<SNIP>8
>>
>> >I have notified your ISP nbn.net and newsfeeds.com. Monday I will
>> >contact the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I do not take death threats
>> >very lightly.
>>
>> Let me know if you need anyone to back you up on this.
>> I don't like people who toss around casual threats
>> either, and seeing the two of them get their asses
>> in a sling would bring me a bit of satisfaction.
>> --
>> .-----.
>> |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
>> | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> | -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
>> | | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
>> |_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
>
Have you any idea how silly it is to believe that you have stumbled on a
plot to kill Bill Gates? Let the state DoJ know, Please, and let that
read that email. If by some stretch of the imagination some numb-nuts
takes you seriously, I would love nothing more than a platform for
pointing out how your ludicrous postings are not merely democratic
opinion but, in fact, "stupid trolling" and meaningless in the course of
rational discussion between *any* two real human beings.
I'm sorry. If you don't post to Usenet with your real name, I don't
even take your threats seriously.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
