Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Loren Petrich)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Marty)
Re: Computer and memory ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (FM)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("billh")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:42:36 -0400
Sam Morris wrote:
>
> > > > > Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun ownership
> > > > > and
> > > > > gun-related deaths.
> > >
> > > You don't have an answer for that, do you?
> >
> > There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates.
>
> That original quote again, folks:
>
> "Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun ownership and
> gun-related deaths."
>
> Spot the difference?
Is death by gunshot somehow worse than death by stabbing or
death by bludgeoning?
The only thing that makes "death by gunshot" bad is that it results in
Death.
Therefore, the CRITICAL analysis is not how many murders are committed
by
one method or another, but to see if limiting any option of murder makes
a dent in the overall murder rate.
History shows that if you remove guns from large segments of society,
that bludgeonings, stabbings, poisonings, etc. rise correspondingly to
take up the slack....and often times, removing guns from law abiding
citizens SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES bludgeonings and stabbings.
Therefore, removing guns from society does NOTHING to protect the
citizens.
>
> BTW - how many usenet posts would you say you make every week, Aaron?
>
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > ICQ # 3056642
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Sam
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:05:51 GMT
In article <Vgbx5.6097$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q3c2q$gel$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
>> features, the works.
>Not the same kernel. Based on the same kernel, much of the same
>code, but there have been many enhancements. More features,
>more works.
Like, for example...
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:13:35 GMT
On 19 Sep 2000 21:00:50 GMT, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>In the case of the second problem - keeping our files organized -
>a mere tag doesn't go as far as it could. For example, if I have
In this case, I'd say names are appropriate.
Another issue which you didn't discuss is that a lot of file
formats have "comment fields". Allowing the user to edit these
would be an interesting idea.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:22:35 GMT
In article <8q4iju$far$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
>> features, the works.
>Maybe, but that doesn't tell C Lund what's new/different between Win98 and
>Win2K, now does it ?
Mr. Lund is incorrect in asserting little fundamental difference.
Ever since 1993 or so, when Microsoft introduced Windows NT, it has had a
two-operating-system strategy.
The Windows NT kernel supports the Win32 API, with DOS and Win16
software being run in virtual-machine fashion.
The Windows 95/98/Me kernel has support for DOS and Win16 built
in, as an awkward sort of hybrid.
End-user-visible differences:
* Stability. WinNT usually beats Win9x there.
* Device drivers. WinNT and Win9x use different flavors of drivers. And
driver writers have tended to write more Win9x-flavor drivers than
WinNT-flavor ones, no doubt because of Win9x's greater market share. In
fact, Linux may now be at least as good as WinNT in the available-drivers
department. Has anyone done a systematic study of this matter?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:29:07 +0100
> > > > > > Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun
ownership
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > gun-related deaths.
> > > >
> > > > You don't have an answer for that, do you?
> > >
> > > There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates.
> >
> > That original quote again, folks:
> >
> > "Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun ownership
and
> > gun-related deaths."
> >
> > Spot the difference?
>
> Is death by gunshot somehow worse than death by stabbing or
> death by bludgeoning?
All murders are undesireable.
> The only thing that makes "death by gunshot" bad is that it results in
> Death.
>
> Therefore, the CRITICAL analysis is not how many murders are committed
> by
> one method or another, but to see if limiting any option of murder makes
> a dent in the overall murder rate.
>
> History shows that if you remove guns from large segments of society,
> that bludgeonings, stabbings, poisonings, etc. rise correspondingly to
> take up the slack....and often times, removing guns from law abiding
> citizens SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES bludgeonings and stabbings.
>
> Therefore, removing guns from society does NOTHING to protect the
> citizens.
It seems to have dramatically curtailed the number of UK schoolyard
shootings, which is what the new laws were designed to do in the first place
(re: Dunblane tragedy).
> > BTW - how many usenet posts would you say you make every week, Aaron?
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:46:36 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <39c6f112$6$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >Too late, liar. You stated several times that Canada was half covered with
> > >an ice sheet in the past decade. Now you try to weasel out. I for one will
> > >not let you off the hook.
> >
> > Umm, Bob. Dial it down, would you?
>
> Bob "The Boob" Germer uses OS/2. What else need be said?
> He's got a grudge and an axe to grind with the whole world because
> it abadonned his beloved OS/2.
Your grossly inappropriate generalization doesn't do your credibility any
good.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:53:05 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No Name wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:52:59 GMT, Chad Myers said:
> > >
> > >"No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8q7lj3$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:44:29 GMT, Chad Myers said:
> > >> >Low Earth Orbit satellites don't experience as much of this as
> > >> >high-orbit satellites do.
> > >> >
> > >> >Teledisic www.teledesic.com is building a global LEOS network
> > >> >that will provide low-latency broadband internet access globally.
> > >> >
> > >> >Now here's an example of a company that's DOING SOMETHING to
> > >> >solve a problem. Not ironically, it's an American company...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A company that without the favor and openess of other countries to
> > >> market its services would find impossible to sell a global
> > >> link.
> > >
> > >
> > >Teledesic has already gained the approval of all the major
communications
> > >control companies. So far, third world countries are excited about this
> > >technology as it will bring easily accessible, reasonably priced
Internet
> > >access to their countries which don't have any type of cable or
telephone
> > >infrastructure to build upon, or have remote citizens with now direct
> > >land-line link of any sorts.
> > >
> > >They've gained US FCC acceptance, the ITU's acceptance. They've also
> > >had several foreign investors including a Saudi gentleman that
> > >invested US $200 million
> >
> > Which proves my intial point. I would like to see what happens if a
> > similar non American company tried to do the same in the US. They would
> > be denied permission to trade in the US for the same motive I'll
> > quote for the 3rd time: a Telecom company has to be owned by US
citizens.
> >
> > No wonder 3rd world countries are excited, but when those same 3rd
> > world countries try to sell their products in the US they find all kind
> > of protectionist measures, which has been my point in this thread: the
>
> It has nothing to do with market protectionism and EVERYTHNG to
> do with national defense.
>
national defence?
<LoL> against what?...el salvador invading usa?
typical paranoid right-wing thinking...
/IL
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:18:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1) The system needs to know what programs can act upon a given file.
>
>2) The user would like to organize his files in a logical way.
There's also this whole matter of transferring files
between systems. I think the MacOS way works well when
you use Macs exclusively, but it's awfully inconvenient
when you need to trasfer files between Macs and PCs
frequently. In the end, I think the most plausible way
is to let the "system" not care about the file-types
and let the user interfaces to infer file-types upon
necessity, using extensions, actual content, or
whatever. It may not be the *best* way for an end-user
system, but then again, interoperatability is an
important goal.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles,alt.fan.jackie-tokeman
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:55:20 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 09/18/2000 at 08:13 AM,
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do the math. The numbers are not actual numbers just a
guide for those
> > > > > > > > that had trouble with algebra 1 in middle school. You are
like Bob, you
> > > > > > > > just can't follow along.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Post REAL numbers which can be VERIFIED independently.
Otherwise your post
> > > > > > > is just more crap from a real stupid fool.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know Bob, I was proving a point about about total output,
and how
> > > > > > North America having a deficit doesn't mean the rest of the
world has a
> > > > > > deficit. You are obviously too incompetent to understand. I'll
tell ya
> > > > > > what, if you can find a carbon cycle diagram that says otherwise
you are
> > > > > > free to post a link to it but I know you won't be able to.
Sucks to be
> > > > > > you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Goddamn, you're a stupid fuck!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can provide proof of your claims to if you like. I'll grab the
> > > > carbon cycle numbers that you can look up too.
> > >
> > > That's all meaningless. The Eco-wacko theories that you espouse
> > > are based on cooked data. This was demonstrated years ago.
> > >
> > > Now...once again, you ignorant, pseudo-intellectual
shit-for-brains....
> > >
> > > SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
> >
> > Too bad you can't take Abe's words to heart. Provide proof. Frankly
> > your schtick gets old.
>
> So is your "The Sky is Falling" message of gloom and doom, now
>
> SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
No.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:57:50 -0400
Richard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:48:32 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I agree completely. I'd just like to point out that "things it's
> > >not intended to do" includes "being used by any human being".
> >
> > Sorry, but you simply can't subsitute your inability to use more
> > than one interface as an excuse to bash any other particular user
> > shell, including KDE.
>
> Sure I can. It's a well-known fact in OS circles that a
> single uniform interface is a fundamental principle of
> good design.
A tendentious claim at best. We want variety.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:14:40 GMT
Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Where did that come from, Marty?
The previous attribution in this thread.
> >> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> > The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
> >>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
> > I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>
> You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
I pointed to your lack of culture.
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
> >>> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>
> >> You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
>
> > I pointed to your lack of culture.
>
> How can you point to a nonexistent lack, Marty?
Non sequitur.
> > Was that not explanation enough?
>
> You're erroneously assuming that there is a lack of culture on my part
> that you can point to, Marty.
Not at all, considering the fact that you were unfamiliar with "Fozzy".
> How many musicals have you performed in?
Of what relevance is this question?
> >>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
> >>>>> You never asked.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, given that I've been asking all along, but you've relied
> >>>> on illogical circular responses.
>
> >>> You didn't ask the first time it was used.
>
> >> Incorrect; see ninety eight lines (including blank lines) below, Marty.
>
> > Why bother, when we can unroll it back to the original articles:
>
> Why bother with deja.com when you could have looked ninety eight lines
> down, Marty?
Because I find it to be more convenient to enter a narrow search criterion and
select an entry from a web page than to count "ninety eight" lines down.
Besides, your response "ninety eight" lines down is not a response to my first
usage of "Fozzy".
> (Now you'll need to come up with a new line count, because
> the new text has affected the spacing.)
Obviously.
> > Note my first usage of "Fozzy".
>
> It was "ninety eight" lines down, Marty. Note my response.
Incorrect. Check the Deja link that I provided.
> > Note how you had not questioned its origin in your reply.
>
> Note my response "ninety eight" lines down, Marty.
Irrelevant as that was not your response to my first usage of "Fozzy".
> >>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >>>>>> You were just being evasive, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Did you expect me to read your mind?
>
> >>>> Unnecessary, Marty.
>
> >>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> >> On the basis that I wrote my question, Marty,
>
> > Incorrect. You made a statement. You had not posed a question.
>
> Incorrect, Marty; see "ninety eight" lines down.
Incorrect, as your statement "ninety eight" lines down is not the statement in
question.
> >> thus it was unnecessary for you to read my mind.
>
> > How can I answer a question that you haven't asked without reading your
> > mind?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I hadn't asked the question,
> Marty.
Refer to the Deja link that I provided.
> >>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>
> >>>>>>>> Typical evasion.
>
> >>>>>>> On your part.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Classic pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Pointing out your pontification is not pontification, Dave.
>
> >> Without substantiating evidence for a pontification, your "pointing
> >> out" is indeed a pontification, Marty.
>
> > The evidence of your pontification is what I replied to, Dave.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
On the basis that I have replied to your pontification.
> >>>>>>> I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
> >>>>>>> that you meant.
>
> >>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I wasn't clear, Marty,
> >>>>>> using it as an excuse to continue your evasiveness.
>
> >>>>> I see you're expecting me to read your mind again.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Then how do you expect me to interpret your made-up words?
>
> >> What alleged "made-up" words, Marty?
>
> > "whee", Dave.
>
> What's allegedly made-up about that, Marty? It's listed at
> www.dictionary.com.
It's slang. Nonetheless, their definition does not fit into the context in
which you've used it. Hence your definition of it is made-up at the very
least.
DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
whee: interj. - Used to express extreme pleasure or enthusiasm.
> >>>>> Why not just correct your error and remove the ambiguity?
>
> >>>> What alleged error, Marty?
>
> >>> DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> >> Where is the alleged ambiguity, Marty?
>
> > "whee", Dave.
>
> What is allegedly ambiguous about that, Marty?
DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
whee: interj. - Used to express extreme pleasure or enthusiasm.
You made up your own definition of the word.
> >>>>> How ironic, coming from someone complaining about alleged
> >>>>> "evasiveness".
>
> >>>> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
>
> >>> Witness your evasiveness.
>
> >> What alleged evasiveness, Marty?
>
> > Witness the fact that you have not clarified what you meant by "whee".
>
> Witness the fact that you have not clarified what you meant by
> "clarified", Marty.
Incorrect, given that I have specified that clarification would be achieved by
properly defining the word.
> Why does it need clarification?
Because you've used the word improperly.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>
> >>>>>>>> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I identified your consistent lack of an
> >>>>>> explanation.
>
> >>>>> That doesn't say anything good about your reading comprehension.
>
> >>>> It doesn't say anything bad about it, Marty.
>
> >>> On the contrary.
>
> >> On what do you base your contrariness, Marty?
>
> > On the basis of the incorrect nature of your statement.
>
> Typical pontification.
How ironic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tyopical pontification.
>
> >>>>>>>>> What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>
> >>>>>>>> Typical evasion.
>
> >>>>>>> On your part.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Classic pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
>
> > And where would that be?
>
> In your statements preceding where I've commented about your
> pontification, Marty.
And where would that be?
> > How ironic that you speak of pontification.
>
> What's allegedly ironic about it, Marty?
Witness your pontification.
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>
> >>>>>> How ironic.
>
> >>>>> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>
> >>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>
> >>> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>
> >> What alleged "made-up" word, Marty?
>
> > "tyopical", Dave.
>
> I see that you didn't answer my question. No surprise there.
On the contrary, "tyopical" is my answer, unless you can find a dictionary
that attests to the existence of this word. Having reading comprehension
problems?
> >> And why are you now using the singular, but above you used the plural:
>
> > Because there was only one left after pointing out the other.
>
> Where did you allegedly do that, Marty?
See above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> See above.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> >>>>>> Yes, which is why I know there isn't an answer above, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Obviously not, considering the answer above.
>
> >>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>
> >>> The one above, Dave.
>
> >> Where above, allegedly, Marty?
>
> > On a line previous to the one on which I first mentioned "above".
>
> How many lines previous, Marty?
Many dozens.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because I would like that.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>> Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>
> >>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>> Because I would find it enjoyable.
>
> >>>> Why?
>
> >>> Because it would be something that I would like.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Because I would enjoy that.
>
> Why?
Because such a thing would please me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't you sure?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not surprising.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>> What alleged "inconsistency"?
>
> >>>>>>>> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Even more classic pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the irony?
>
> >> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
>
> > How ironic.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
On the basis of your statement's irony.
> >>>>>>>>> I see you failed to note my consistent use of
> >>>>>>>>> the attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>>>>>> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
> >>>>>>>> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument.
> >>>>>>> No surprise there.
>
> >>>>>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
> >>>>>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>
> >>>>> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
> >>>>> argument. No surprise there.
>
> >>>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
> >>>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>
> >>> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
> >>> argument. No surprise there.
>
> > Note: no response.
Note: still no response. Interesting how you removed the statement in which I
pointed out your previous lack of response.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
> >>>>>>>>>>> this thread.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
> >>>>>>>>> Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>
> >>>>>>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>
> >>>>>>> Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider
> >>>>>>> "this thread".
>
> >>>>>> Considering "this thread" to be "this thread" is classic illogical
> >>>>>> circular reasoning, Marty.
>
> >>>>> That depends on your definition of the first "this thread".
>
> >>>> No it doesn't, Marty.
>
> >>> Classic pontification.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Where is the irony, Dave?
>
> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
Where have I allegedly pontificated, Dave?
> >>>>>>> It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
> >>>>>>> precisely the ones to which I was referring.
>
> >>>>>> All threads have a finite number of postings, Marty, but they don't all
> >>>>>> have the same subject line.
>
> >>>>> Of what relevance is this remark?
>
> >>>> The same as yours, Marty.
>
> >>> Even more pontification.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Where is the irony, Dave?
>
> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
Where have I allegedly pontificated, Dave?
> >>>>>>> There's nothing illogical about being self-referential when we are
> >>>>>>> still contributing to what I consider "this thread".
>
> >>>>>> There is something illogical about using circular reasoning, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Glad I haven't done such a thing.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Prove that I'm not glad, if you think you can.
>
> >> Unnecessary, given that you have done such a thing, Marty.
>
> > Classic pontification.
>
> Incorrect, given that I pointed out the instance of illogical circular
> reasoning when you used it, Marty.
Incorrectly.
> > Prove that I have "done such a thing" as "not be glad".
>
> Non sequitur.
It was as sequitur as your statement:
"Unnecessary, given that you have done such a thing, Marty."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
