Linux-Advocacy Digest #419, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products ("Todd")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Todd")
Re: Win2K ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Eric)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Double standard? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: The real issue (Ian Davey)
Re: Win2K (Jacques Guy)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Todd")
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Jacques Guy)
Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products (Karri Kalpio)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
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")
Re: How low can they go...? (Herbie Jurvanen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:13:36 +0800
"Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> ...
> > > I'm impressed by the fact that I can use a free OS with my GeForce and
it
> > > will be no perceivable difference in speed to W2K.
> >
> > Not according to recent benchmarks. Windows 2000 is faster in OpenGL
than
> > Linux.
> > It wasn't me who came up with the benchmarks, I'm only the messenger.
>
> No, you're not. Typical wording in this ng would be "your a liar".
Ahhh... well, I gave the URL. You can see for yourself.
> I would rather define you as a jerk.
Fine. I know that it is hard to see Windows 2000 beating Linux... you can
certainly resort to name-calling to prove your point, if you want.
> Tom's hardware was comparing NVidia drivers. They say that the
> NVidia's linux driver beta (v. 0.95) is slower than the driver they
> have for Windows. They even explain why: their linux driver does not
> yet support page-flipping.
Customers don't care. They care about performance regardless of the
excuses.
> There's no claim that Linux OpenGL is slower than Windows 2000 OpenGL.
> That is not their message. The message you should be carrying is that
> the NVidia's Linux driver for Detonator 2 and 3 is not as fast as its
> Windows 2000 counterpart.
That is true. However, I *DID* say using Nvidia's products. Also, people
care about bottom line performance, and as I said, 'using Nvidia products',
OpenGL is faster on 2000 than under Linux.
Quite an accomplishment given that Linux is supposed to be 'so much faster'
than 2000 on the same hardware.
In this case (as well with many others), Windows 2000 is faster.
-Todd
>
> --karri
>
> --
> /"\ : Karri Kalpio
> \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
> / \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:15:18 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:13:58 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> James Stutts wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > And the DOS (renamed "Win9x" then renamed "WinME") line is less
> >> > > commercial than the NT line?
> >> >
> >> > Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get what you
pay
> >> > for.
> >>
> >> I pay hardly anything for Linux and I have an *extremely* stable O/S! I
> >> guess that *I* got what I paid for.
> >
> >I used to think that way too until I realized that 'time really is
money'.
> >At my age, 31, time goes by way to fast, and I don't want to muck around
> >with an OS for hours to try to get it do a simple task. Windows 2000
solves
> >this for me.
> >
> >Paying $300 for an OS is nothing to me if it saves me time and
frustration.
>
> That's precisely how I view Linux (relative to WinDOS or NT).
>
> Except I didn't have to pay $300 for it.
That's great if it works for you. For the other 99% of the population, it
is going to be an easy-to-use, intuitive system. Today, that is Windows.
-Todd
>
> [deletia]
>
>
> --
>
> I request a weekend in Havana with Phil Silvers!
>
> Why you say you no bunny rabbit when you have little powder-puff tail?
> -- The Tasmanian Devil
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:15:37 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:33:54 +0100, Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"J.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:OL1C5.7214$tL4.159941@zonnet-reader-1...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Strange, the Matrox web page lists non-beta 5.03.025 drivers for the
> >> > Millenium G400 and G400 MAX.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh, you mean those drivers that dont have any functionality in yet?
Like
> >no
> >> dualscreen, almost no hardware acceleration, and no OpenGL support, you
> >mean
> >> THOSE stable drivers? Might as well run the standard VGA driver then.
But
> >> the drivers that use all the 'good stuff' of the Matrox, are still in
> >beta.
> >
> >So take it up with Matrox. If they're not providing you with quality
> >drivers, vote with your wallet and chose an OEM who does.
>
> Still, despite that shifting of blame: the fact remains that the
> whole point bothering to put up with Microsoft is the ability to
> "run everything". Don't get that as a part of your deal with the
> devil and you've ended up getting the shaft.
I don't think MS have ever claimed to "run everything" on Windows NT/2000.
I still fail to see how an OEM not releasing drivers is somehow MS's
problem.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:18:45 +0800
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > heh... well, you have to pay for your *own* software and upgrades.
> >
> > "I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk
through."
>
No, you need to read more carefully as before...
-Todd
> Do I take it that you're suggesting a bank heist, and offering to drive
the
> getaway car?
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 12:19:37 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There is a lot of hype about Linux. I use it to learn a bit about Unix
> at home. But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
> numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
>
> I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
> desktop? Reasons such as "Win2k is made by the Evil Empire are not
> really valid".
Because I really can't stand that each time I install something in NT,
am asked if I want to reboot now or later to let the changes take
effect?
I do NOT want to reboot, WHY can't I make an application run without
rebooting? I know it's just a minor annoyance, but it's there, and it's
getting more and more annoying each time it happens.
Eric
> Linux is a promising product, and I suppose it needs its supporters.
> But for the rest of us, we just want to be productive.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:29:37 +0900
In article <8r6a8p$l95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the most expensive parts of 98 is that it needs to run on a
> myriad of hardware systems... and install flawlessly with plug and play
> ability.
>
> If you didn't have to worry about this (the hardware was known), then
> the price would be far lower.
>
> Linux is a good example of this. The base OS may be OK, but it has
> lousy hardware support, horrible installation and setup, it is
> non-intuitive in almost every step of the installation process, and very
> user-unfriendly. Now I'm not saying that Linux sucks, but merely that it
> is very hard to get it set up and working. 98 is vastly superior in
> this regard.
If by "lousy hardware support", you mean "less supported hardware than
win98", I can't really argue. Comparisons to windows hardware support
aside, linux does support a fair range of hardware - I have never had any
problems, and in one case, an unsupported video card worked better with
linux than it did under windows, where it was officially supported. (this
was a Matrox g400 32meg with the official drivers, about eight months to a
year ago).
And unless you are talking about debian or slackware, you are totally and
100% wrong about linux installs. (I've heard debian and slackware are not
very newbie-friendly, but have never used them so might be wrong).
A year ago, installing caldera openlinux was pretty much the same as
installing windows - setting up the x-server was the only real difference.
Today, Mandrake (and others, I assume) are actually easier to install than
windows 98.
What, exactly, is non-intuitive about linux installs?
> So, you may not think that is anything special, but it costs a hell of a
> lot of money in development costs and coordination to make sure 98 is
> flawless in this regard. It is perhaps more important to MS than
> stability -- if the common consumer can't install it, then stability
> means nothing at all.
The common comsumer never installs an os, so why should ms give a crap?
And you are saying that developing drivers constitute a large portion of
the development costs for the various versions of windows? I'm no expert,
but I don't believe it.
>> Think about it, what do you do with a computer with only windows on it?
>
> 1) Do my development work on the best dev. tools available (InterDev
> and Visual)
> 2) Do my office work on the best productivity platform (Office 2000)
HAHA! Oh, are you serious? we must have different definitions of "best"
and / or "productivity". In my office (nice people, but brain-dead
computer users), productivity is right out the window because of Word
(97,98,2000) - everyone wastes time adding unnecessary decorations to
everything they write. Make this line (whatever font), make this word
bold, reverse this text, add some clip art here.... Sheesh, give me a
simple text editor any day. ok, this isn't really the fault of word, but
it does annoy me to no end.
Also, word creates absolutely horrible html files.
> 3) Play the best games available (MS Allegiance, Diablo 2, AOK,
> StarLancer, and soon Tribes2 !! -- yah)
Some of those best games are also available for linux. But yes, games are
one of windows strong points. Unlike other software, it is hard to replace
a specific game. People will switch from Excell to / from Lotus 123 or
gnumeric, but if you like Starcraft, you can't switch to just any other
rts game.
So what happens when MS starts releasing games for the X-box instead of
for Windows? What will you do then?
> 4) Surf the internet with the best browser out their (IE 5.5)
Even if it were the best, it would only be by virtue of the fact that MS
destroyed the competition. Sure, it is good, but how much better would it
be if it had to go head to head with two or three other browsers on merit
rather than abusing monopolistic advantage?
> What would I do with Linux?
Be productive, have fun, what ever you want. For a fraction of the cost.
> Watch my uptime counter? No thanks. I have 'uptime' in Windows 2000
> and I never have crashed with Win2K yet. If it let's me down, I'd
> probably look at OSX or BeOS. Linux is a little bit unrefined at this
> point. However, Linux is fun to play around with.
>
There is an uptime counter program? That might be fun to have under the
clock. Watching it all day might be boring though, you are right about that.
--
Osugi Sakae
anarchist, skeptic, free man.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 21:28:18 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
How about VB scripts inside email programs that execute viruses?
Chris
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Oh, I don't know about that! GNOME is beginning to really take shape,
> > but just about everything that you can do in Windows you can do in KDE!
>
> Ok, how about create a virtual file system housed inside the shell browser
> as a plug-in? How about Shell extension contexts? How about Embedding HTML
> into the desktop (including Java applets)? How about shell namespace
> extensions that allow you to create things like the printers or dialup
> networking folders (Obviously, using the Linux equivelants of these)? How
> about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:30:37 GMT
In article <8rc87g$qs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And I can *CHOOSE* to use Windows 2000 - because that is what I want to use.
>Big bad 'ol Billy doesn't force it down anybody's throat. I simply choose
>to use it because I want to.
>
>Get over it.
I'm curious though, if you've chosen to use Windows 2000, and are completely
happy with it then why are you posting on a Linux Advocacy group? Wouldn't you
be better off in a Windows Advocacy group? A lot of people here would have
chosen Linux simply because they like it. I certainly have. I find the GUI
interfaces much easier and quicker to use than Windows, and prefer the
multi-desktop concept. I've used and liked KDE and Gnome, but still find
myself drawn back to the uncluttered fvwm2.
My girlfriend, who is a complete computer novice and struggles with Windows,
even finds it easy to use. The applications in Mandrake7.1 are grouped in
useful categories and are much easier to browse, rather than exporing the mess
that windows install programs leave behind in the Start menu. Where you often
have to browse by irrelevant stuff like company name -> product name rather
than the actual tool you are looking for. In Linux you can look for Tools -->
Spanners --> SpannerX, whereas typically in Windows you need to browse for
Lowtechs --> Wrench2000 --> SpannerX. Then when you get there you realise you
actually needed Hightechs Spanner2000, so have to go back up through the
menus. This is something not always easy for novices.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:37:45 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Todd wrote:
> Wait until you see MS' next quarterly financial statement. They are now
> just starting to see the fruits of Windows 2000.
The fruits we see right now, here, looking in your mouth. (*)
> Additionally, according to 'the Register', HP is going to deploy Windows
> 2000 multi-language version on ALL desktops (more than 100,000 licenses).
My humble OS copes with French, Breton, Korean, and Japanese so far,
without my having had to install anything. It does not cope, however,
with Sumerian, Elamite, and Linear B. If Winbloze 2000 did, I would
still rather write my own software, it's not that difficult, and
I would not have to download a 200M service band-aid.
> Once MS wins the antitrust case, I expect my shares to rocket. Heck, even
> if they would have split into two companies, both shares would also rocket.
So put that rocket up your arse, your dick in your ear, and let's
sit back and wait for you to get into orbit.
And don't forget to buy more MSFT shares, as you
say yourself, they'll never be cheaper.
(*) see the meaning and etymology of "sycophant".
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:39:46 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:57:49 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Stutts wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> Spoken like a true astroturfer, not a user. Because win98se is so
> >> >unstable,
> >> >> it is necessary to save files every minute or two (particularly for
> >those
> >> >
> >> >Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system
> >(Win98)
> >> >in
> >> >a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not
perfect,
> >it
> >> >is
> >> >far more stable than Win98.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Very true. We've now got a web front-end for the exchange server so
that
> >> I don't have to use Outlook any more.
> >
> >Ugh... I hate web front ends to email... such as hotmail. Makes
everything
> >so difficult to use and slow.
> >
> >Outlook 2000 is an awesome mail client... hell, I even like the new
> >assistants (the kitty cat comes to mind). I know it sounds trivial, but
I
> >actually am growing attached to it. :)
> >
> >Anyway, I guess if using Linux is more important that having a decent
email
> >package...
>
> ...which is not how I would characterize Outlook.
>
> Outlook actually gave me a new found appreciation for ccmail.
Ack! ccmail ??? Now that is bad software :)
> [deletia]
>
> Nevermind there was no actual specification of what "decent" is
> and why none of the Linux mail clients achieve this definition.
>
> --
>
> Whistler's Law:
> You never know who is right, but you always know who is in charge.
>
> It is Fortune, not Wisdom, that rules man's life.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:42:33 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Todd wrote:
> That's great if it works for you. For the other 99% of the population, it
> is going to be an easy-to-use, intuitive system. Today, that is Windows.
And tomorrow... the SUN rises.
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
Date: 03 Oct 2000 14:01:10 +0300
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Not according to recent benchmarks. Windows 2000 is faster in
=========================
> > > OpenGL than Linux.
=================
> > > It wasn't me who came up with the benchmarks, I'm only the messenger.
...
> That is true. However, I *DID* say using Nvidia's products. Also, people
> care about bottom line performance, and as I said, 'using Nvidia products',
> OpenGL is faster on 2000 than under Linux.
Please, re-check your original mail... You did not say that "Windows
2000 in this benchmark performs OpenGL better when using the NVidia's
Windows 2000 driver than when using the NVidia's Linux driver." Your
statement can be seen above.
> > Tom's hardware was comparing NVidia drivers. They say that the
> > NVidia's linux driver beta (v. 0.95) is slower than the driver they
> > have for Windows. They even explain why: their linux driver does not
> > yet support page-flipping.
>
> Customers don't care. They care about performance regardless of the
> excuses.
Sure. However, that benchmark can not be used to back up (well,
actually with some twisted logic it can as you have just proved)
the claim that Linux is slower than Windows 2000 in OpenGL. However,
it is a informative benchmark telling that Linux user might consider
not to buy the new NVidia card until NVidia can provide drivers that
fully support their hardware.
Obligatory URL:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q4/001002/linux_nvidia-20.html
Conclusions made by Tom's Hardware are very different from your
conlusions. "Only the messenger" indeed...
--karri
--
/"\ : Karri Kalpio
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
/ \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 3 Oct 2000 11:28:54 GMT
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:37:10 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
You obviously haven't been here long enough to understand the
concept of "topic drift" or the fact that these forums have
long threads.
If the thread bugs you, just killfile it. That is, assuming
you've got a real newsreader
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[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, 3 Oct 2000 13:35:26 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >In the OS game, I do have choices. [...]
>
> Let me guess; but you choose to use the product that 90% of the other PC
What's wrong with that ?
> users just 'happen' to choose, and it 'happens' be to pre-installed on
> the PC when you buy it, and just 'happens' to make it difficult to
My box was bought as spare parts.
> replace it or migrate away from it....
How so ? You mean by actually running the apps I want on my hardware ?
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
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, 03 Oct 2000 07:40:43 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Excessive taxes on those who work, to pay for
> >> > Government coddling for those who don't.
> >> Cry me a river. A big fat Marxist river.
> >That certainly IS what you're looking for.
>
> The Marxism here is your posture of being an exploited, oppressed
> worker.
Wrong. That's HUMAN RIGHTS.
The human right to keep what you earn without having it confiscated
by the government.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
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
her 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: "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, 03 Oct 2000 07:43:14 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > This is what happens when you come from a viewpoint which dicatates
> >> > that ALL money is the rightful property of the bureaucrats, to be
> >> > redistributed, willy-nilly, at the whim of politicians.
> >> Pure straw position.
> >So declares the communist-agitator.
>
> Can't you think of any other insults?
You're a soft-headed fool and a wanna-be dicatator.
>
> >> And Mr. Kulkis seems to like everything that he professes to object
> >> to when it's military. So the ideal way to get even the grossest pork
> >> past the Kulkises of the world is to claim some "national defense"
> >> purpose to it.
> >I'm one of the first to admit that defense spending is abused.
>
> Praise with faint damns.
>
> >What I can't figure out is why you advocate running the ENTIRE
> >ECONOMY IN THE SAME FASHION.
>
> I have no such position.
You support Marxism. Marxist economies are run by the same
bureaucratic methods defense appropriations and acquisitions...
only for the ENTIRE fucking economy.
>
> >> So it's a pity that welfarism's supporters have not tried to claim
> >> some "national defense" purpose, such as sewing soldiers' uniforms. If
> >> they pulled off that kind of political stunt, I'm sure that the
> >> Kulkises of the world would belligerently and venomously defend it.
> >Once again...why do you want the ENTIRE ECONOMY run in a manner similar
> >to Department of Defense appropriations...
>
> Thank you for proving me right.
And thank YOU for demonstrating that you are choosing an
economic model which you say is badly flawed, as the model
for the ENTIRE US economy.
> --
> Loren Petrich
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> And a fast train
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
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
her 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] (Herbie Jurvanen)
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: 3 Oct 2000 11:44:22 GMT
In <X2hC5.3804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>The key word here is "certain". Please provide a single case of a corporate
>entity being convicted of a felony. Just once cite please.
US v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. The corporation in question was convicted of
215 felonies. The incredulous can look it up at: 871 F.2d 1181.
Love,
Herbie J.
Famous Curator
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
