Linux-Advocacy Digest #734, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: "pure" Linux?? (Steve Matheson)
Re: C# is a copy of java (D. Spider)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (D. Spider)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (D. Spider)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: "pure" Linux?? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whats a good starting point? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Enemies of MS are Linux Lovers (Jure Sah)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux support for IntelliEye ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Matheson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:14:28 GMT
Why not Corel Linux?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> supported at this point of the game. It also does not matter which
> distribution you start with, except stay away from Corel Linux. Also you
> might also stay away from Mandrake since they seem to have modified the
> kernel.
--
Steve Matheson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone (250) 374-4411
Fax (250) 374-2267 Fax
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:25:17 GMT
It appears that on 4 Aug 2000 02:58:17 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <8lteof$6lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>: says...
>:> > C is a mid-level language. Pascal is a high level language. As such, C
>:> > will allow you more flexability. The cost is complexity (and enough
>:> > rope to hang yourself if you are not careful.)
>:>
>:> But at least the rope is there to pull youself back up if you should slip or
>:> be shoved off cliff.
>:>
>:>
>:>
>
>: With the right knowledge yes.
>
>: Point being in many languages you won't end up over the cliff in the
>: first place.
>
>: You can't over-run an array in BASIC or Pascal. You can in C.
>
>Imagine trying to implement something like C's qsort() in Pascal,
>where you can't have open-ended arrays, and you can't pass an array
>of unknown types of data.
>
>What I'm trying to say is that while there are some ways Pascal is
>more high-level than C, there other ways in which C is more high-level
>than Pascal. C is closer to being object-oriented than Pascal is.
>In C you can have generic functions that operate on generic data,
>like qsort. You can have "container classes" by making libraries
>that take a void* as an argument. Generic linked lists, generic
>trees, generic growing vectors, and such are all impossible in
>Pascal. Sure the C way of being OO-like is prone to mistakes, but
>it is something "high level" that Pascal can't even do at all.
There is something called object pascal, it's even used sometimes.
Borland sells a version called Delphi, I've never liked it, but I
never liked Pascal either.
>: You can write bad data to errent memory locations in most versions of
>: BASIC or Pascal. You can in C.
>
>: It's far easier to leak memory in C. (Now fixed in C# using a Java-like
>: garbage collection scheme).
>
>Certainly this is true.
>
>: Errors like this can be difficult to troubleshoot at best.
>
>: (I like C/C++ ... I make a living leveraging it. But I'm hard pressed
>: to call it a high level language. Mid-level is fine. And exactly what
>: I need. )
>
>C is no less high-level than Pascal. That's all I'm trying to say.
>I don't consider Pascal to be very high-level either. It imposed too
>much rigidity without giving any outs to get around the rigidity where
>it got in the way of good coding practice. Pascal is an excellent
>language for people who like to copy the same code over and over again
>to make routines that differ only in the type of data they operate on.
"High" and "low" level are certainly over-simplifications. The genius
of C was in providing some of the better points of each type. "Pascals
ugly sister" - but far more powerful.
The same sort of advantages accrue to lisp, although it gets much less
attention due to it's "alien-looking" (i.e. non algol-derived) syntax.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:25:21 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:50:10 -0500, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I won't switch newsreaders just to *PLONK* you, although I may consider
>it in the future if you continue to harras me and try to point out my
>shortcommings (and then deny your attempts as you have here). But from
>this point forward, I will ignore you.
While I certainly don't want to encourage you to plonk anyone
unnecessarily, you really should get a real newsreader.
Mozilla/Netscape is not adequate for usenet on any platform - you
might as well be using Outhouse Express. Your apparent irritability
may well have something to do with the frustration anyone would feel
trying to keep up with modern usenet without an adequate tool. There
is no shortage of good usenet readers available for you GNU/Linux
platform, slrn, gnus, and pan come to mind right off, if you want a
GUI app Pan may well fit the bill, I haven't tried it myself, but the
reviews have been good. http://www.superpimp.org
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:25:25 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:32:33 -0500, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
"They" don't make this so (whoever they are) - YOU make it so by
trying to use usenet without acquiring an appropriate tool to do so
with.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:47:56 -0500
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <m%Fq5.8022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > That depends on what you mean by market share. When I say market
> >> > share,
> > I
> >> > mean the number of servers that have IIS on them, versus the number
> >> > of servers that have Apache on them. Not the number of domains that
> >> > are
> >> hosted
> >> > by each server application.
> >>
> >> Typical wintroll crap. "Market Share" _by definition_ means a
> >> percentage
> > of
> >> total sales for the market:
> >>
> >> "Ratio of sales of company's product or product line to the total
> >> market
> >> sales for that product or product line. "
> >>
> >> "Expressed as a percentage. "
> >>
> >> (source: http://www.rpi.edu/~holmec/ms.html)
> >>
> >> Thus if Apache's sever count is growing faster than IIS's server count,
> > MS's
> >> market share is _dwindling_, because the MS's ratio of servers to the
> > total
> >> is getting smaller. (Basic 7th grade math.)
> >
> > But that's just it. Apache's server count may *NOT* be growing faster
> > (and probably isn't). The Apache *HOSTED DOMAIN* count is growing
> > faster. That does not equote to the number of server installations
> > (which would be the most equivelant "Ratio of sales of company product
> > or product line to the total market sales for that product or product
> > line."
> >
> >> > Only when you define "market share" as "percentage of hosted
> >> > domains".
> >>
> >> That's what it is. Unless you want to redefine _IS_.
> >
> > No. Market share is the number of installed servers. NOT the number of
> > hosted domains.
> >
> > If I go out and register 1000 domains and point them all to the same
> > site, that's not 1000 installations of Apache. That's one installation
> > with 999 aliases.
>
> Beans! The netcraft numbers are as good as any one can get. The numbers
speak for themselves.
Oh, of course. Because reality does not come into play in a Linux advocates
world.
> How come when m$ pays or publishes numbers we are to take them as fact,
but when
> someone publishes numbers that show real world useage the wintrolls say
they are not
> representive of the true world and must be adjusted to show m$ is in the
lead????
If you're talking about mindcraft. Everyone with any degree of objectivity
admits that Linux did indeed have faults which were illustrated by the
Mindcraft benchmark. Even Linus agreed. They're mostly fixed now. Why
would you need to fix something if it wasn't broken?
> Get over it wintrolls Apache owns the web.
Right.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:50:19 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry. I simply do not believe you that A system with X, KDE, and
> > several other major services only takes 35MB. X with KDE alone will
take up
> > at least that much (KDE buffers consume huge amounts of memory in fact).
>
> Believe what you want, but I run X, KDE, and man other things on my
Thinkpad
> with 32MB of memory.
You've never heard of virtual memory?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:49:17 +0100
Steve Matheson wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Why not Corel Linux?
>
Corel Linux is limited in its customizability - for example it only has one
window manager (based on KDE).
It also has problems on some hardware due to Autoprobing hardware being the
only configuration method and if you have a configuration where this hangs
then there is no manual setup option unlike other linux versions where
manual config is the default and autoprobe is optional.
It is also uses out of date versions of all included applications and
utilities so may have problems with the latest hardware or have bugs which
other versions have had fixed long ago (suse, redhat and mandrake are at
least 2 versions ahead of corel).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:56:40 -0500
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Obviously? Win95 ran in 4MB or ram. And it did so equally as fast as
Win
> >3.1 did. Of course it ran MUCH faster than Win 3.1 when you had 8-16MB
of
> >ram, but that wasn't the requirement.
>
> I'm just quoting this to point out to anyone else reading how obvious
> it is you are, as we say in the vernacular, "talking out your rear."
> You could coax Win95 into booting up on a 4 meg machine, but you
> certainly couldn't do anything useful with it. With 3.1 you could do
> quite a bit in 4 megs. Something anyone that actually USED them
> (instead of relying on the marketing hype from the time you found with
> a search engine) would know.
I used Win95 in 4 megs on a 386 for nearly 3 months. I know exactly how
well it works. No, I didn't run monsters like Office 95, but I did run Word
6 and Excel 5, not to mention custom apps.
> >Clearly you haven't used the start menu in many years.
>
> I love this bit too, this is classic. Do you know how to read a
> header? Clearly not. Let me point this out to you... figure out how to
> tell outhouse express to show you the headers (I would tell you how,
> but I don't allow such broken software to even sit on my disk, let
> alone use it, so you'll have to figure out how to do this or ask
> someone else) and look for the line that says X-Newsreader:. If you
> still can't figure out why this line is funny, maybe someone else will
> be kind to you and explain.
Your headers do not indicate that you are using a version of Windows with IE
4 or 5 installed. How would they be able to tell me if you were using a
recent version of windows?
> No, just because Apple does something that doesn't mean it's right.
> Apple historically has gotten less stuff wrong in the GUI area, less
> stuff != no stuff. Is that concept really too hard for you to grasp?
> You obviously think I'm a Mac zealot, well guess what, I can't stand
> Macs! Just because I don't use or like them, however, doesn't mean I
> can't see that they do some things right! Try to open your eyes and
> see the world around you in all of it's wonderful shades and hues,
> instead of this black and white illusion you are projecting onto it.
Oh, you hate macs, but you love their interface? Give me a break.
> A user interface can be backward compatible with a previous one by
> preserving the UI traits of the previous version. Doh!
Do you know what "backwards compatible" means? An app can be backwards
compatibile, meaning that it works with older OS's. An OS can be backwards
compatible, meaning it works with older Apps. A user interface being
backwards compatible means what? That it works with older users?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:55:43 +0100
>Stay away from RedHat and the others as they are getting to the point of
being
>bloated. Do you need 5 text editors? No.
>
They may contain lots of software but they don't force you to install all 5
text editors - the choice is there though if different editors are suitable
for different users. Same with other software supplied which seems to be
duplicated. For example CD Writers - xtoaster is best for cd copying, kisocd
and gtoaster best for mastering new disks.
RPM files seem to be easier to obtain than the debian deb format ,although
both formats can be made to install on all versions of linux with additional
installers.
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of MS are Linux Lovers
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:01:52 +0200
Make sure you read the truth from both sides, it might be a little
different than your model of the things that are going on.
(Check the subject line)
You just got to see it whole.
--
If you ask me, a 4 byte cookie is rather big. But I don't think it
depends on my modem, it depends on how much I can bite at once... =)
V yvxr ZvpebFbsg! V ubcr lbh qba'g zvaq gur EBG13...
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
Http://www.geocities.com/gtsc4/index.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:59:57 -0500
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qwMq5.267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Win95 (the original, first version released) *DID* run just as well in
4MB
> > of ram as Windows 3.1 on a 386. I know this because I was responsible
for
> > benchmarking it for the company I worked for at the time. Windows 95
was
> > several times faster if you gave it about 8-16MB of memory.
>
> Oich, i once tested win95 on a 386... takes ages to boot, but it *DID*
> run...
> I wonder if i can install it on my USR Courier modem, it has a 386 in
it;..
> heh
Yes, it took a while to boot. But booting time was not a requirement. The
requirement was that it ran applications just as fast.
> > Windows 2000 is proving to be more stable than Windows 3.51 (they moved
> the
> > drivers into the kernel in 4.0). Tell me again how this makes the OS
> > inherantly more unstable.
>
> Badly written drivers can bring the system down, this is true for all
> systems where drivers
> riside in the kernel space
Which is almost every OS. X can crash Unix, despite the fact that it's
running in user mode. Anything that manipulates hardware has the ability to
crash the machine by faulting the bus.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux support for IntelliEye
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:00:11 +0100
>I have a IntelliEye mouse hooked up as a ps/2 mouse using the adapter that
came with it (USB to ps/2)
>and it works just fine. Use imwheel and the wheel will work as well.
>
You may also be able to make the mouse work by using the new 2.4 kernel but
this does mean downloading 20mb of sourcecode and compiling it yourself.
Drivers may also be available in sourcecode format for making a kernel
module for 2.2 kernel as my mandrake version seems to have usb support (I
don't have usb hardware on machine I use it on though so cannot confirm
this).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:04:31 -0500
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There, everything that deserved a reply (and some stuff that didn't)
> from all 4 of your posts are answered, and in the interests of my
> signal to noise ration you are now going in my killfile - anyone that
> comes out with such a tone of superior knowledge as you have, while
> making so many incredibly ignorant statements at the same time, is
> presumed to be a troll and dealt with accordingly.
I love people that put others in their killfile simply because they don't
agree with them. That's called being closed minded and refusing to open it.
I'm sure he'll figure out someday that the only people he's listening to are
sycophants.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 29 Aug 2000 17:53:39 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:36:41 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
You were asked this:
---
Aaron, are you claiming that there is a conspiracy between
school teachers in the US, and, say, the french education minister,
to make the french students superior to the US ones?
---
To which you replied with the following diversionary drivel:
---
>> > > > > > The NEA leadership is overrun with Marxists.
---
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What's the NEA?
>> > > >
>> > > > National Education Association, the leftist union that controls
>> the
>> > > > teaching establishment.
>> > >
>> > > Then you have not answered my question.
>> >
>> > You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink....
Here you still refuse to answer the question. The conspiracy is supposed
to be self-evident from the existence of the NEA.
Here's a hint: what does the "N" stand for ? Here's another hint: it
is not "international".
>> Ok, you got the ad hominem out of your system.
>>
>> Can you answer my question now?
>>
>> Even if the NEA was a nest of marxists, that would not
>> be proof of the conspiracy, because for a conspiracy
>> you need at least two parts, and you need to show
>> them communicating.
>
>Are you alleging that the NEA leadership doesn't communicate with
>each other, and the rank and file?
No, he's not. He's alleging that the NEA are not involved with teachers
outside the US in an international conspiracy. Answer the question, dunce.
I just realised that I am eligeable to join, and hence personally
verify that your claim is a load of hogwash (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:54:39 -0400
C Lund wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I wasn't talking about "welfare slobs", I was talking about the
> working poor.
> >
> > The only "working poor" are those who either
> > A) refuse to work enough
> > B) refuse to do work that pays well.
> > C) Spend all of their money on stupid shit like new cars they can't
> > afford, dumb-ass gold jewelry, etc.
>
> D) Just can't find a job that pays enough.
Haven't checked the want-ads any time in the last 20 years, have ya...
>
> > > And sometimes "ME" is not enough. Sometimes you fail for no fault of your
> > > own.
> > I've failed many times. Big fucking deal.
>
> So how did you get back up?
>
> > Being broke is a momentary condition
> > Poverty is a way of life.
>
> A way of life few if any choose.
Yes, the dooooooooo choose it. They choose to NOT do what it
takes to not be a poverty-stricken loser. They choose NOT to
pay attention in school. They choose NOT to get work in any number
of low-skill high-paying jobs (admittedly, the work SUCKS, but,
that's precisely why the pay is so high).
>
> > Any body who is "in poverty" is there because they CHOOSE TO LIVE
> > that lifestyle.
>
> Bullshit. Pure self-centered bullshit.
Name ONE adult who is in poverty who would still be there no matter
what choices and actions they made in their life.
Almost all of those in poverty are those who CHOSE to not apply
themselves in school.
>
> > > You don't need to be doing drugs/booze/hookers/whatever to be among hte
> > > working �poor. All it takes is having a job that pays very little. If
> > ...you forgot *AND* making sure that you never work full time.
>
> The working poor *do* work full time. That's why they're called "working poor".
What part of "living beyond one's means" do you not understand?
>
> > > you're trying to raise a kid or two, then you're even worse off.
> > TOUGH SHIT! IF you can't afford kids, don't have them.
>
> Get real. The urge to procreate is *the* strongest urge in every single
> speices on the face of the earth. And you want people to ignore it so they
> can fit into your little world?
Hey, the same liberals who complain about the plight of "the poor"
are the same ones who fought for and won the right to unrestricted
abortion.
So...if you can't afford to have a kid...
sit down, shut up and get an abortion.
>
> > If you do...then do the right thing and put them up for adoption.
>
> How is *that* the right thing? That's about the worst thing you can do to
> a newborn child. Jeez...
Oh, really.
Taking the child out of a cockroach- and rat-infested shithole, to
be raised in the household of a married couple who actually have
a clue about how to successfully function in life, and, more
importantly, pay the bills, keep food on the table, and keep the
house and food-supply free of insects and rodents,.....you say
that this is the "worst thing you can do to a newborn child"???
How about leaving it in the custody of a drunken crackwhore who
"forgets" to feed the kid because she's too busy gettin' spacey.
>
> > > Your "they're poor because they deserve to be poor" attitude is what's out
> > > of touch with reality.
> > Being broke is a passing inconvenience.
> > POVERTY IS A WAY OF LIFE.
>
> It ain't true just because you type it in all caps.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
>
> > In this country, anybody who was poor 3 years ago, and is still poor
> > today
> > is in such a situation for no reason other than their own poor
> > decisions.
> > If you're really that desperate, go get a second job.
>
> Many of the working poor have two jobs.
What part of "living beyond one's means" do you not understand
>
> --
>
> C Lund
> http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
--
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 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:55:07 -0400
C Lund wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's because of the particular issues we've been discussing. Try
> > asking him about censorship and he'll probably sound like a Democrat.
>
> I see..
>
> Which ng are you two posting from anyway? I'm on CSMA. I'm not sure what
No wonder you write like a hand-wringing pansy.
> this topic has to do with Macintosh computers... (but it's an interesting
> change)
>
> --
>
> C Lund
> http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
--
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 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
