Linux-Advocacy Digest #410, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Re: Linux Sucks (Sam Diamond)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Linux Sucks (Raffael Cavallaro)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:23:01 -0000
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 01:39:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 01:01:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:49:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:08:37 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just look at all these comments....
>>>>
>>>>And there's nothing from anybody in this crowd which indicates why
>>>>Microsoft
>>>>will or should survive. No positive comments about Windows at all.
>>>>
>>>>IT's ALL NEGATIVE TOWARDS LINUX AND THEY ARE CALLING ME
>>>>A TOTAL LIAR FOR SAYING SO...
>>>
>>>Not a liar, just a total idiot.
>>>
>>>Point 1. 200 million users? What hat did you pull that penguin from?
>>>Point 2. Microsoft and Windows survives because it is, by far, the
>>>best solution for the majority of the users out there.
>>
>> ...it being forced down everyone's throats for over 10
>> years certainly doesn't hurt either...
>>
>> It's not as if alternatives have been present.
>
>
>Linux is FREE and it still has not made a dent in the desktop market.
Actually, according to the latest IDC numbers it has infact
made a "dent" in the desktop market.
>Certainly it is, on paper anyway, a superior system, but without
>applications it's as good as a Ferrari without wheels.
Your criticisms of Linux applications thusfar have been
extremely unimpressive.
>>>
>>>Face it, Linux has had quite a lot of press in the last 2 years. Do
>>>YOU see home users (the majority of the population) flocking to free
>>>of charge Linux?
>>
>> Home users use what Dell shoves at them. There's simply no
>> flocking involved. This is actually how it has always been.
>> Historically, only a small minority has ever installed thier
>> own OS or built their own machine.
>
>IBM offers a choice, so does Dell Compaq and others....Nobody seems to
>want it Linux..Why is that?
People sell what buys, people buy what sells.
>Why don't you call them and ask them off the record how many people
>are actually ordering Linux pre-loads?
>
>I have and the answers are less than spectacular...
ANYthing not DOS has had less than spectacular success ever
since IBM's branded microcomputer first hit the market. That
demonstrates the good name of IBM more than it demonstrates
anything else.
The rest is just legacy.
>
>
>>>
>>>I don't.
>>>
>>>It can't even be given away to any large degree. People try it and
>>
>> Yet it manages still to catch up with Microsoft in sales
>> in certain markets, and shelf space for Linux buyware is
>> GROWING rather than shrinking.
>
>It cathces up in server market, which I am not addressing and you know
>that.
>
>Shelf space may be increasing due to hype, but actual sales are
>dismal.
>Do some research and you will discover that.
No, IDC does infact contradict you.
>
>>>dump it just as quickly. I can name dozens of folks who honestly
>>>wanted to make it work and gave up due to lack of decent, not barely
>>>functional, applications.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for meaningful details regarding why, beyond
>> being excessive bundleware, your win32 indrema application is
>> any better at those functions it handles than any or all of the
>> Linux competitors.
>
>
>You can pick any application you like and the Windows or Mac version
>is far superior. And stop trying to bait me, I know full well about
Once again, multiple instances of empty rhetoric does not make
the rhetoric any less empty.
>your cheap, empty handed tricks.
[deletia]
Yeah, "prove it" is certainly an empty handed trick.
Why don't you move on, perhaps to a religion group.
--
The full impact of parenthood doesn't hit you until you multiply the
number of your kids by thirty-two teeth.
------------------------------
From: Sam Diamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:42:24 -0400
Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I tried Linux and I think it stinks. While there seem to be hundreds,
> if not thousands of applications included with the basic cd, most of
> them are useless junk that seem to require an interpreter of sorts to
> figure out.
>
> My advice is to let Linux be and allow it to die the slow death it
> seems to be dying as we speak. What junk this linux is. Do people
> actually like this sort of rot?
>
> Richard Y. Hertz
Like anything else, if you take the time to learn it, you can see it's
strength's and weaknesses. I'm fairly new to it myself but already I
see a lot of strengths. There is no question that it's pretty solid.
I've tried to kill runaway processes in NT and reboot, and doing it the
"correct" way took me 15 painful minutes. In linux, it was gone in a
flash and it didn't affect other processes. True Microsft is easy to
use, but once you get the hang of linux, it's great. Take at least one
course in it if not 2, and then render judgement.
Dying a slow death? Doubtful at best.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:35:25 -0000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:10:04 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8r7b20$gsqu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Actually, Linux isn't an operating system. Just a kernel.
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, Win2k is just an operating system but
>> most linux distro's contain operating system, Graphics package
>> (GIMP), at least 1 SQL server package (usually mysql), several
>> word processors (all better than wordpad), etc and cost less
>> than a fifth of the cost of just the win2k operating system and is
>> more stable. Nobody can say that MS operating system distro's
>> are more productive than buying a Linux distro without spending more
>
>I bet if MS tried to bundle any of these things, they'd be sued.
There aren't multiple MS'es all battling it out for marketshare.
None of the Linux vendors are capable of controlling the market
and manipulating it to kill of 3rd party vendors that might be
a threat to their dominance.
--
When in doubt, lead trump.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:37:38 -0000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:12:16 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:EwXB5.7159$tL4.158813@zonnet-reader-1...
>>
>> > But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
>> > numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
>>
>> Win2K Stable? You have to be joking, man. My CDRW software doesnt work, my
>
>The Adaptec ASPI driver problem?
If the predominant SCSI vendor's cards can't be expected to work
on the predominant OS vendor's OS, you might as well build yourself
a cabin in the mountains and find a bear cub to rescue.
>
>> viruscanner crashed, and almost all the drivers for my hardware are still
>in
>
>How is the lack of driver support with some hardware (all my stuff is
>supported with
>release drivers) Microsoft's fault?
It's one of their bulletpoints.
Besides, if they didn't change their driver model so often, and
actually planned for forward compatibility, they wouldn't have
to worry about such things.
--
Women reason with the heart and are much less often wrong than men who
reason with the head.
-- DeLescure
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:37:10 -0400
People who post on this thread are posting about subjects that have
nothing to do with the newsgroups to which they are posting. They are
polluting these newsgroups with posts based on topics that belong in
other newsgroups. The posters are apparently unable to identify the
appropriate newsgroups and I therefore bestow upon them the title of
OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
Congratulations to all of you.
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Given this sort of hateful venom toward welfare recipients, I'm
> : surprised that there have not been lots of firebombings of places where
> : they live.
>
> There are some unfortunately. :(
>
> Around here they are usually racially motivated.
>
> In Detroit, only about 200 miles away, some people just burn and bomb
> the shit out of whatever they want to, "just because."
>
> : Even if a lot of them *are* losers, I don't see how they are worth
> : that kind of venom.
>
> Most of the people on welfare are children. They do not deserve any
> venom at all. But they do deserve the support of both parents. The
> fact that one parent is often missing explains not only most of the
> perceived need for public assistance, but also most of what's wrong
> with it.
>
> Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:38:45 -0000
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:42:24 -0400, Sam Diamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I tried Linux and I think it stinks. While there seem to be hundreds,
>> if not thousands of applications included with the basic cd, most of
>> them are useless junk that seem to require an interpreter of sorts to
>> figure out.
>>
>> My advice is to let Linux be and allow it to die the slow death it
>> seems to be dying as we speak. What junk this linux is. Do people
>> actually like this sort of rot?
>>
>> Richard Y. Hertz
>Like anything else, if you take the time to learn it, you can see it's
>strength's and weaknesses. I'm fairly new to it myself but already I
>see a lot of strengths. There is no question that it's pretty solid.
>I've tried to kill runaway processes in NT and reboot, and doing it the
>"correct" way took me 15 painful minutes. In linux, it was gone in a
>flash and it didn't affect other processes. True Microsft is easy to
>use, but once you get the hang of linux, it's great. Take at least one
>course in it if not 2, and then render judgement.
>
>Dying a slow death? Doubtful at best.
As long as more trolls come, such trollish declarations of the
imminent death of Linux are self contradictory.
--
Measure twice, cut once.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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, 03 Oct 2000 02:42:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So, since Windows sucks (at least from what you have posted, that's what
> >> >you believe), then why is it successful?
> >>
> >> Anti-competitive pre-load contracts, anti-competitive developments,
> >> anti-competitive marketing, and pretty much a slew of anti-competitive,
> >> and illegal, business activity. Next question?
> >
> >So if they do this, how did AOL survive the onslaught?
>
> Probably through anti-competitive activities, would be my guess. I
> though AOL was anti-competitive since before Win95. But I wouldn't tag
> any specific action of AOL to 'survive the onslaught' outside of the
> common knowledge, without evidence. The fundamental issue was probably
> one of using growth by acquisition to fuel false marketing of
> 'popularity'. "Look at how successful we are (using capital to buy out
> all the competition). Boy, we must be *really great*."
So in your mind, any business success is via cheating. It hasn't
ocurred to you that good marketing and a 'good enough' product are all
that's needed? (See Java for a pure example of this)
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:44:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I tried Linux and I think it stinks. While there seem to be hundreds,
>if not thousands of applications included with the basic cd, most of
>them are useless junk that seem to require an interpreter of sorts to
>figure out.
>
>My advice is to let Linux be and allow it to die the slow death it
>seems to be dying as we speak. What junk this linux is. Do people
>actually like this sort of rot?
>
>Richard Y. Hertz
Would that be "Dick" Hertz? Troll.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:44:08 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> People who post on this thread are posting about subjects that have
> nothing to do with the newsgroups to which they are posting. They are
> polluting these newsgroups with posts based on topics that belong in
> other newsgroups. The posters are apparently unable to identify the
> appropriate newsgroups and I therefore bestow upon them the title of
>
> OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
>
> Congratulations to all of you.
He's not only the club President, he's also a member!
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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, 03 Oct 2000 02:50:47 GMT
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> <very big snip because I've addressed most of these points in the past
> and I'm tired now>
> >
>
> Oh, and as for your points concerning who has more credibility
> etcetera... look, you can observe carefully, and I think that you'll
> discover that, whatever else you end up thinking of me, my discourse is
> pretty meticulously truthful. The people I argue with, for the most part
> -- James Robertson in this particular instance being an example -- are
> not so meticulously truthful. For example, I sent you material in
> private that should have provided some insight into the extent to which
> James, in this instance, was misrepresenting what happened prior to that
> point in the debate.
Yeesh. All I really wanted to get across was this:
-- In the past, I didn't have a lot of patience with anonymous postings
to a forum like this. I figured that unlike politics, there really
wasn't much to fear in putting a public face on your opinions.
Yes, JTK is generally crude, uninformed, (pick your favorite adjective
here). But having followed this forum for year, I can honestly say that
the level of vitriol spewed by his attackers goes far beyond anything
he's ever said. Heck, for the most part he isn't worth responding to at
all.
I cam to the conclusion that I was wrong after watching the amount of
harrassment that people like pvdl were willing to heap on JTK after
figuring out who he is. Now I'm watching JS/PL go after Max. At this
point, I understand the desire for anonymity. Some people dislike
differing opinions so much that all they can think to do is stifle them.
Recall that the answer to bad speech isn't censorship; it's more
speech. And as to libel - if you believe that you have a case, the
appropriate forum is <not> an attack on a person where he works; rather,
it's a civil suit in a courtroom. If you don't have the guts to go
after a person with the legal means made available to you, then just do
us all a favor and:
-- pipe down
-- drink warm milk
-- take a nap
>
> Jonathan Revusky
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:53:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> To substitute government intrusion for free speech and personal
>> responsibility, which is why I don't like them. It isn't the personal
>> responsibility of the accuser I'm interested in; its the personal
>> responsibility of the people viewing the accusation which gets
>> circumvented.
>
>Frankly, I don't see how it does. Surely, I don't see how I lose some
>responsibility when dealing with anonymous people just because they are
>anonymous. The lack of responsibility would rather be on their part.
>That is what should be tackled.
If you're going to talk about personal responsibility, you have to talk
about personal responsibility; not 'other peoples' responsibilities.
You have a responsibility to critically consider the words of anyone
who's words you're reading. You have to based that consideration on
many different things. Whether the person who wrote them chooses to
remain anonymous is your responsibility to be aware of and to take into
account.
[...]
>Well, actually, a good friend of mine was in a situation (outside
>usenet) where someone made a false accusation that he was a racist. His
>lawyer managed to sort this out and it had to be done quickly, because
>in communities, well, people like gossips. Specially nasty gossips. And
>then people will avoid to be associated with you, because, well, there
>is a sort of suspicious black cloud over you.
Yea, an more horror stories will follow, just like all the other
lawyer-inspired paranoia we're all responsible for dealing with. The
cure for false accusations of racism is to not be a racist, and point
out that they're false accusations. The cure for gossip is not more
lawyers.
>I have witnessed people making their mind without spending the time
>checking whether some accusations were true. "If he said it, it must be
>true". I witness that often enough to take it seriously if I am on the
>receiving end of it.
And so rather than call for personal responsibility on people you've
witnessed not employing it in their decision to believe false claims,
you'd rather second-guess whether someone has a valid reason for
remaining anonymous. If you witness it and take it seriously, I'd
suggest you start making sure you won't be at the receiving end by
pointing out their error.
>Isn't it your experience? (lucky you)
Its my experience that most people who want to preach about 'personal
responsibility' are just as much trying to avoid it as anyone else.
>But anyway, in my friend's case, the accuser was not anonymous. But
>that just illustrates how nasty such accusations can be.
It points out, in fact, that making accusations anonymously pretty much
guarantees they're false. Remember before people accepted marketing as
value and knew that gossip was wrong, by itself? If someone believes
gossip about you, then they're to blame and you're to blame more than
whoever started it can be 'blamed' for having some reason to lie about
you.
>As far as the
>anonymity is concerned in that matter, I don't like receiving stones
>and not knowing where it comes from. As Jonathan Revusky said, I have
>the right to face my accuser.
In a court of law. In intellectual discussion, we're often dealing more
with self-indictment. Particularly when supposedly engaging in
technical discourse. I mean, if someone falsely accuses you of being a
racist, an alcoholic, or a pedophile in a technical newsgroup, doesn't
it make it rather obvious that they've lost the argument, in any
reasonable person's mind?
>> The smaller the community, the less harm such absurd claims would be.
>
>Now I think *you* don't have any ground for such an assertion. On the
>contrary, it seems to me logical that the opposite is true. In a huge
>community, less people will pay attention to what is said about you (I
>am talking about common people like me, not the very few famous public
>figures).
In a huge community, all people ever know of you is by hearsay, so the
damage done by hearsay would be far worse. It would hardly be a *crime*
if someone you knew told a lie to someone else you knew and you believed
them, though obviously there might be some civil damages claimed in some
circumstances. Rather narrow circumstances, I would imagine. Big
business libel claims are because there was money involved, not because
they were false gossip.
[...]
>So are you suggesting that I should put up with the false accusation,
>simply because you are able to (thanks to some super human stoicism)?
I would say that you should put up with the false accusations, because
you haven't any choice in whether anyone makes them, and concentrate on
simply trying to be as reasonable and honest as possible all the time
(which I'm sure you do, but it never hurts to double-check ourselves).
By remaining within the context of Usenet, which whether we like it or
not supports unauthenticated access, your choices of how to respond to
an anonymous troll would very very rarely, and only under circumstances
of direct harassment, extend to revealing their identity. That does not
require super human stoicism, though I will admit that I consider it a
bit more enlightened a position than most people would be willing to
swallow without addition discussion. Feel free to ask questions.
[...]
>I don't see why we should rely on people to put up with the kind of
>abuse we are talking about by expecting them to be rational and
>thoughtful.
It is an intellectual medium. I expect everyone to be rational and
thoughtful at all times. I'm not a netcop, really, and I'm not saying
that all posts must be serious and sober. But 'thoughtful' would seem a
given for a literary work.
>It seems to me more pragmatic to sort out the problem by
>attacking the source: the anonymous jerk.
Yes, it would. But that's a false instinct, I tell you. If you want to
deal with unattractive parts of human conduct, you're going to have to
realize that wishful thinking is not a valid ethical stance. Of course
you should get upset at an anonymous jerk attacking you with false
accusations. The idea of Usenet is to see if you're smart enough to
deal with it through intellectual discourse. Remember, as long as
you're being honest, history and archives (we hope; see the sig virus)
will back you up.
I find it hard to believe that people who are so civilized that they
wouldn't even send a huge file to someone in email without asking are so
quick to break someone else's anonymity.
>Imagine if we had to train people to accept rats in their house, to
>ignore them, no matter the amount of nuisance they cause...
Imagine if we had to train people to accept responsibility for their
words, and gave them a global forum for sharing them. Don't you think
there's going to have to be some more pragmatic way to prevent dishonest
statements than wishful thinking? You're dealing, ultimately, with a
slippery slope, and I'm still not going to say I'm defending someone
posting lies. But I'm not going to defend someone breaking someone
else's anonymity in a Usenet forum on the grounds of what they post
without careful reflection, and I can't defend informing someone's
employer of their actions. If they've done something wrong, informing
the government or your lawyer is all that's called for; informing their
employer is merely bullying extortion, because you don't know the
personal circumstance which caused them to choose to post anonymously.
Unless the system is overhauled to require true authentication without
false identities, then outing someone is the nuisance, not anonymous
trolling.
>As you say, it seems pretty much idealistic.
It is, but its also the inevitable way things work. People do, in fact,
have to learn how to post to Usenet. That requires enough maturity that
you don't believe ad hominem attacks, including, often, being called a
racist, an alcoholic, or a pedophile.
>Incidently, you just used the term "monkeys" as a namecalling.
No, I didn't. :-) Its not namecalling to call humans mammals, either.
When I do it, its not even derogatory.
>Well,
>this very term was used by Gary R Van Sickle (under the pseudonym JTK)
>to make a bogus accusation of racism towards me. He then played the
>race card, portraying himself as a victim (as an afro-american), to go
>further in his sick game.
Yes, I know how these things go. I've been around long enough to have
some war-stories myself.
>Well, I don't see why on earth I and other people would have to ignore
>such outrageous behaviour. In fact, my set of moral beliefs rather
>dictates me to do something about it. Not to do so would be morally
>wrong.
I didn't say anything at all about ignoring the behavior. My moral
beliefs dictate I do something about it, too. Post accurate,
consistent, and practical discussion to provide evidence I'm a
reasonable person, and the anonymous troll is not. Sooner or later,
they all give up, at least temporarily, or you just start ignoring them.
My plan is if I keep posting reasonably and honestly for about a decade,
possible ten more people will be able to engage in civilized discussion
without such childish antics distracting them. If those ten people then
post for a decade, getting ten more people who can engage in
entertaining discussion, within a couple of decades there won't be any
trolls left.
>It's not just for me. You don't mess up with the issue of racism. It is
>a very serious thing and many people are victims of it.
Whether many people are victims of racism is not what makes a false
accusation of racism 'very serious'.
>P.S. I have just noticed that this thread was cross-posted to several
>ngs. I didn't follow all of it and just jumped in to make a certain
>point. May be it would more appropriate if we talked about it in
>private. Unless of course, this topic is relevant to ngs other than
>c.l.j.a (which I strongly suspect actually).
I'm willing to take any discussion to alt.destroy.microsoft, actually
(my posts generally make up 50% of the traffic anyway), or you can go to
email if you'd like. But I'm not afraid of cross-posting, and would
just as soon continue the discussion unless someone else complains.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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
******************************
