Linux-Advocacy Digest #738, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: porting unix/win software to linux (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (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: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: porting unix/win software to linux
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:54:44 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:10:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Are there any good books that describe the process to port unix/win
|code to linux? I am thinking of buying 'Porting UNIX software -
|O'Reilly' but I am not sure it will cover porting windows software.
|
|Any information will be greatly appreciated.
|
|Thanks in advance,
|Chris Snow
|
|Can replies please be cc'd to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have this book. It only covers differences between UNIX variants.
It may be some use in porting from windos, as it does discuss how
things are done in UNIX, and how to make your programs run on different
variants, but it would be no use on it's own.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:41:05 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:52:22 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
>> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
>
>Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
>which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
It still doesn't matter. Unless you can't install the media
on a wiped machine, it is not of the same utility as an M$
upgrade media package.
It's actually more useful.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:54:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>>So you are saying that if we long time users
>
>Part of your mistake is to assume that the fact that you are a "long time
>user" means that the developers are obliged to provide you their services
>for free. Clue: they are not.
Real Clue: nobody has assumed that. If I might: Part of your mistake is
to assume that expressing concern over the direction of development is a
demand that developers provide their services for free.
>> have issues with the course of
>>Linux development, our solution should be to relegate our computers to
>>running outdated versions of the OS and/or its supporting software and
>>become outcasts of the very community the we helped build.
>
>He didn't say anything of the sort. His point is that it is impossible for a
>developer to "sabotage" software that you already have been given freely.
>Your implication that a developer could sabotage your working Linux software
>is indeed nonsense, as Roberto pointed out.
I would think that with the ready evidence before us that it is not only
possible but relatively easy to sabotage software that you already have
been "given freely", or acquired through any other means would make this
statement unnecessary. Its less likely that everyone would be capable
of recognizing the subtle problems of ethics and commerce which make
such a path readily obvious and perilously attractive. Those members of
the community (including all 'end users', who contribute in their own
small way by implementing and using the code and products) who have the
wherewithal to point out the inherent dishonesty (or lack of conscience,
or, minimally, ridicule of ones customers) involved deserve more than
having those concerns called "nonsense".
>As for "running outdated versions", well, you know, what's to stop someone
>updating forking and writing a "new version" ?
>
>I'm afraid I don't get the bit about "outcasts" at all.
Then I'm afraid you don't get the bit about "community" at all, either.
>> My how Animal >Farmish of you!
>
>Now you follow up your straw man with insults.
Actually, it was a very incisive observation of the parallel.
>>> I said, indeed that if you don't like Corel's HW detection, you can
>>> either
>>> not use Corel, or fix it, and I stand behind that.
>>
>>That was just one sample of a much larger set of issues.
>
>But that issue kind of sums it up. Speaking for myself, I dont' whine about
>how Corel are "making an outcast" of me; even though I don't like their
>distribution. The fact that someone writes software that you don't like doesn't
>make you an "outcast".
Nobody said anything about Corel except they didn't like their product,
and would prefer if a counter-point was raised to the on-going promotion
of such an approach as a "good idea" that should be adopted by more
Linux distributions. If somebody likes Corel's auto-detect, then they
should use it, and shut up about it, as it were. Since they have a
product which is disfunctional in the way they seem to prefer, there is
no justification whatsoever for anyone who likes auto-detect or Corel or
any other move to "make Linux a Windows clone" to be advocating that
this type of crap, er... solution, should be adopted more widely in the
Linux community.
Nathaniel Lee obviously shows himself to be a real contributor to the
community in expressing that opinion by pointing out the potential
consequences of making Linux more like what less demanding consumers
expect a PC OS to be like, due to familiarity with Windows. More so,
possibly, than those who believe that by coding, they gain a superior
right to disadvantage other members of the community, which I believe
may simply indicate a desire to take advantage of, rather than
contribute to, the community effort. If Roberto wants to propose that
coders only write software for themselves, and don't care if other
people do or do not use their software, that's fine. There is no insult
necessary to deliver that message, as narrow-minded and short-sighted as
it is. Obviously, if direct commercial return on investment in writing
software is the only way you consider software can or will be written,
though, that response makes no sense. Even if you consider a Linux
distro to be a "product", in any regard, if only even as a false (but
agreeably so to the market) shell for services, it simply makes no sense
to say that programmers don't write code for *other* people, not
themselves, and so there's little point in denying that everyone has the
right to provide input on what they feel is the "proper development" of
the system.
I'm not a big fan of consumer input in development, BTW, to begin with.
I think the developers should be left to determine what they think "an
improvement" is, with minimal input from the customer, and the customers
should be left only with the responsibility to determine what is a fair
price. The excessive use of software as capital to provide
opportunities for profiteering which make up the commercial software
trade, however, makes 'free software' an acceptable alternative to the
market, and thus the community may conflict with the commercial
interests who use free software in their business model.
To some, it may appear that someone with a commercial interest (through
whatever path) is essentially seeking to insinuate their wares into the
largest number of systems (in order to gain market control, and
potentially monopoly control, of the system itself), and this can
effectively be done by replicating the disastrous methods of Windows
merely because they are familiar to the mass consumer base. I may be
that a commercial interest might work to do so by shouting down those
more educated consumers who seek to point out that it is a lousy idea
(for Corel or anybody else) to implement auto-detect as they did, or
write X or any other server into the kernel, or emulate the disaster of
the registry as a replacement for /etc, or a number of other *examples*
of the problem.
Saying that none of these are individually problems, because you don't
have to support a distro that implements them, is simply denying the
problem to begin with.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Mr. Wenham. You may have thought you were posting a humorous response,
>> here. But what you've actually done is certainly libelous, and
>> potentially criminal. This is a dishonest post, and I'd prefer if you
>> never repeated this type of behavior. I'd prefer it so much, in fact,
>> that if you do it again, I will report you to your ISP, and we'll see if
>> they agree with my sentiments.
>
> Sure!
>
> They can be reached by sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] They
> can also be called directly by dialing (516) 221-6664.
>
> The address of my ISP is:
>
> 2471 Merrick Road
> Bellmore, NY 11710
I was already aware of this information, of course. I will presume that
your posting of it rather than a repeat of what I was complaining about
indicates that you do not intend to continue your offense, though I must
also point out that the fact you posted it with no other comments
indicates you will likely continue to deny that you are acting
dishonestly.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is the word which means something, and words
>> >> are defined by dictionaries and usage, not by statute.
>> >
>> >This a rather hypocritical position for you to take, given your
>> >continued insistence on using "legal" definitions when discussing
>> >antitrust, rather than using the common meanings of words found in a
>> >dictionary.
>> >
>> >Why is legal jargon the right way to talk about antitrust, but the wrong
>> >way to talk about the legal status of an organization?
>>
>> Because legal jargon is right when you are using legal jargon, and wrong
>> or at least potentially misleading when you are not. In legal jargon,
>> words would be defined by precedent and context, not by statute. This
>> is aptly demonstrated in particular by the statute known as the Sherman
>> Act, which outlaws "restraint of trade" and "monopolization", but
>> provides no definitions for these terms. A perusal of the early
>> railroad cases provides a conclusive argument that "precisely what is
>> monopolization" is known to be a non-trivial question. The later
>> decisions from which 'popular wisdom' is more strongly derived provide
>> competent but limited view of the situation. Still, the fact that
>> definition of legal jargon is not nearly as trivial an issue as common
>> speech is well established. Common speech can afford to be much more
>> subtle, and thus communicative, while legal language strives ultimately
>> for nothing more than a lack of ambiguity.
>
>You've explained differences you see about the two, but not why it's
>suddenly wrong to cite the language of a statute (which is exactly what
>you were doing when you kept citing the "monopolization" wording of the
>Sherman Act).
I didn't say it was wrong to cite a statue, and I'm not sure where you
got the impression that I thought it was. I have stated that it is
impractical and even counter-productive to assume one can translate the
text of a statute without interpretation, but I think you're more
specifically referring to a similar comment I made concerning precedent.
My point, as I don't mean to obfuscate but that doesn't mean I want to
over-simplify, is that much false 'popular wisdom understanding' of
anti-trust law (and any law) is based on an injudicious translation of
court decisions. Since the text of these decisions were meant for
judicial interpretation, this can easily mis-characterize what is
actually being said. This can happen inadvertently as well as
intentionally, so I'm not trying to ascribe any blame or malice. But
there isn't anything in any precedent which reasonably can be
interpreted as "having a monopoly isn't illegal...", which is the
current saw I hope to discourage, despite the ease with which any number
of quotes can be misinterpreted to suggest this. In some cases, simply
translating the words in the decision directly into common speech,
without correctly interpreting the legal jargon, can lead to monstrously
inappropriate misrepresentations of the law.
--
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: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation...
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> > Actually, the only real difference between programmers
>> > and 3D animators, in my experience, is that us 3D types
>> > tend to be much more pissy and moody, due to our rather
>> > eccentric artistic tendencies. :-)
>>
>> I wouldn't say developers are any less pissy or moody.
>
>I'd tend to agree - but I spent many years around/and working with
>"artists", and they are a very different breed. If you tell a
>programmer he's doing it wrong, he knows there are 9 other ways
>to do it, and tries a different approach. When you tell an artist
>you don't like their work, it's a personal attack on the validity
>of their existance.
Why, Rex, how catholic of you. If you tell an artist they're doing it
wrong, they'll laugh at you. If you tell an engineer you don't like
their work, they'll have a fit and call you a moron. If you tell the
programmer he's "doing it wrong", he'll have an even worse response in
many cases, though there is always the chance that he'll reconsider
using an alternative method. But only if he agrees with your opinion to
begin with.
Then again, I think Erik's point seems valid. Obviously, either group
is more than capable of being equally open to alternatives and
buttheaded. Artists, however, have a justification for their fickleness
which is both valid and productive. Of course, some programmers are
artists, as well. The artist realizes that his choices are personal and
subjective; the engineer already picked one of the 10 ways to do it, and
will defend his choice to the death as a matter of personal integrity.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
[...]
>> >But we care, that's why we ask. You see, if you believe there are
>> >non-real persons, or real non-persons posting on usenet, we would like to
>> >know...
>>
>> I believe what you mean to say is that you would like to believe I do.
>
>No, I don't mean that. I mean exactly what I wrote. I would like
>to believe you are a reasonable guy who just acts like a fool,
>yet I don't believe it, though.
Then you are a fool who just acts like a reasonable guy.
[...]
>> First, look up the word "amphiboly" in several dictionaries or other
>> references. Then read the following sentence: JS/PL is not a real
>> person.
>
>Main Entry: am�phib�o�ly
[...]
>"a sentence or phrase (as "nothing is good enough for you") susceptible
>of more than one interpretation".
I said look it up in several references, not post one definition from a
single source.
>Cool. Now, you said JS/PL is not a real person.
>
>I gave you already two interpretations: he is a non-real person,
>or he is a real non-person (so I obviously accepted the phrase
>as an amphibology).
>
>Now, what is your other interpretation?
Did I suggest I have some other interpretation, or indicate that I agree
(or disagree) with either of yours?
--
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> >
>> >> [...]I figure I'll come out ahead as long as I'm honest[...]
>> >
>> >You have proven here several times that you are not honest.
>> >So, you will not come out ahead.
>> >
>> >Thanks for playing.
>>
>> And its posts like this which provide the "big money, big prizes" of the
>> effort. :-)
>>
>> Shall we go for a bonus round? Like maybe you could show where I might
>> have been dishonest? Not mistaken, not wrong, but dishonest?
>
>Sure!
>
>In this URL you will find a post where you knew you were making a
>wrong statement, knew it was wrong, yet saw no reason to retract.
>
>http://x52.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=663603671
>
>To me, that seems dishonest. You later apologized, which shows
>you now accept the statement was false, and the knowledge of
>it being wrong is obvious from your own words.
I can imagine that to you it might "seem" dishonest. For me, your
reticence to discuss calmly and completely what potential fiscal or
ethical entanglements might be involved in the KDE development effort
"seemed" equally dishonest.
>So, you are dishonest. You are a liar.
So if I seem dishonest to you, then I am dishonest, is that your
position?
>Selected quotes:
>
>"Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project."
>
>"Just because QT is the product, not KDE, and the
>company's name isn't KDE, but Troll Tech, is no
>reason for me to retract[...]"
>
>Thanks again for playing.
These opinions were honest and sincerely stated. Whether they are
correct or not is an entirely different question. Several points in
those remarks, I would no longer agree with in the context in which they
were given, though I give no guarantees of their lack of accuracy
otherwise. Your insistence that I'm being dishonest in having or
stating these opinions simply because you disagree with them or consider
them an unfair indictment of KDE or later changed my opinion is, I'm
almost afraid to say, an example of your failure to rise to the
intellectual challenge of our "game".
I'm afraid nobody's going to be offering you any parting gifts, dude.
--
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: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> [...]
>> >If you can't say what you want to say, correct yourself instead of
>> >lying.
>>
>> I always say what I want to say. The problem is that you always read
>> what you want to read, regardless of what I say.
>
>Allow me to quote inaccurately what you deleted: "You need to read
>not only what I say but what I meant". If you say what you mean,
>your previous statement makes no sense.
I think the fact that you needed to quote me inaccurately should have
been enough to clue you in to the problem; your lack of comprehension of
what I said. We've apparently reached a recursive level of examination
of the issue, as the only further response I can think of is the comment
I've already made, and which you have already proved true, by failing to
read it accurately.
>> As evidenced by your
>> entirely false contention that I've engaged in lying or any other
>> dishonest representation.
>
>Well, I posted a careful explanation of why you lied.
>Then you apologized. Looks like a confession to me, liar.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sat, 26 Aug 2000
16:27:21 -0400:
====================================================================================
Said T. Max Devlin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>As for the QT license, here is a short summary, by example:
>>
>>A) You write a program that uses QT [...]I pay no license fee
>>to you or TrollTech.
>>
>>B) You write a proprietary [...] I pay no license fee to to TrollTech.
>
>Well, that sounds fine to me. So long as Troll Tech doesn't encourage
>profiteering on the part of the closed source code developers (directly
>and willfully), I have no problem with it.
>
>I'll give it a day or so, to make sure I haven't skipped anything, and
>then Roberto will have my apology. Thanks, Gary.
====================================================================================
[...]
>Yawn. Look, liarkid, I am a part of the project. I know the
>project. Until two days ago you didn't even know who we are
>or what we do. Therefore, if you still believe your opinion
>in this matter carries more weight than mine, you are just
>deluded. You could say I am lying, though, but I will wait
>until you do before I discuss that argument.
Look, elitistkid, I am a potential user. If you don't care what I think
of KDE, then fine. Calling me a liar because you don't like what I say
doesn't help. I'm sure you think you dissuaded my concerns, but this
has become a regular pattern, obvious to anyone involved in these
'discussions' with you. You blow off the concern of someone else with
some moronic condescension, insist that this was your addressing of
their comments and their concerns from a position of authority, and then
jump in calling them dishonest, a liar, ignorant, clueless, what have
you, when they don't roll over and play dead.
In the end, Roberto, being part of the KDE project kind of makes you
*least* authoritative in discussing it, given the circumstances and
issues involved.
[...]
>I saw your apology, Max. It's good. Liars should apologize
>for their lies.
I have not lied, and did not apologize for lying. I apologized for
being mistaken. And its worth pointing out that you're still being a
dishonest asshole about it. I know you can do better than that,
Roberto. I've seen you (once or twice). These groups don't need
assholes like you and Aaron "troll bait" Kulkis any more than we need
idiots like JS/PL or Christopher Smith.
[...]
>> Well, it does seem clear that you are more of a butthead than a whore.
>> But no apologies will be forthcoming on either manner, given the
>> circumstances.
>
>Again, you accept I am not a whore, yet you will not apologize.
>I expected just that. You are someone who makes false statements,
>and when shown their falsehood, doesn't take them back. You are
>a liar.
Well, seeing as I assume you don't make your living peddling that warm
spot between your butt-cheeks to tourists on the streets of Argentina,
it was obviously a 'false statement', in some respects (otherwise known
as 'a rhetorical' or, more consistently, 'a metaphorical' statement)
when I made it to begin with. I certainly won't apologize for calling
you a whore amidst your effort to brow-beat me and malign my character,
no.
But I will suggest that the problem might simply be that you aren't
capable of grasping the abstract difference between a false statement
and a metaphorical one.
--
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
******************************
