Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Off-topic Idiot Olympics (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Idiot Olympics
Date: 4 Oct 2000 14:16:07 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 13:39:21 GMT, Marty wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 04:11:24 GMT, Marty wrote:
>> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:18:55 GMT, Marty wrote:
>> >> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:05:33 GMT, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >> Now that's what I call a Tholen-war.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On what basis do you make this claim?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On the basis that it satisfies the definition of the term previously
>> >> >> posted.
>> >> >
>> >> >Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>> >>
>> >> It's logical
>> >
>> >Classic pontification.
>>
>> On what basis do you make that claim ?
>
>Witness your pontification above.
What pontification.
>> >> unless you object to either the aforementioned definition
>> >
>> >What alleged "aforementioned definition"?
>>
>> My original definition of the term "Tholen-war".
>
>Still using made-up definitions?
All definitions are "made up".
>> >> or the assertion that this discussion satisfies the criteria for that
>> >> definition.
>> >
>> >You're presupposing an "aforementioned definition", Donovan.
>>
>> Such a definition indeed exists.
>
>Where, allegedly?
Allegedly at the URL I showed you.
>
>> >>>>>>>>>> did
>
>You didn't write that, Donovan.
did.
>
>> >>>>>>>>> didn't
>
>I didn't write that, Donovan.
Irrelevant
>
>> >>>>>>>> did too
>
>You didn't write that, Donovan.
Incorrect
>
>> >>>>>>> did not
>
>I didn't write that, Donovan.
Irrelevant.
>> >>>>>> did too, see above.
>
>You didn't write that, Donovan.
Incorrect
>> >>>>> incorrect
>
>I didn't write that, Donovan.
Irrelevant
>> >>>> illogical
>
>You didn't write that, Donovan.
Incorrect
>
>> >>> incorrect
>
>I didn't write that, Donovan.
Irrelevant
>> >>I know you are but what am I ?
>
>You didn't write that, Donovan.
False
>> >illogical
>
>I didn't write that, Donovan. Taking forgery lessons from Moul?
Irrelevant. Negative.
>> ad infinitum
>
>Impossible.
Evidence please.
>> Yeah, he's in my killfile.
>
>Evidence, please.
Irrelevant
>> I'm just hazarding an educated guess about the content of the debate.
>
>Why not stick to the facts?
The afore-mentioned guess is based on facts.
>> [1] In response to these discussions, I propose the
>> following definition:
>
>What you propose is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
Illogical. One doesn't "prove" a definition.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:04:51 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >explanatory power. The value of prediction lies only in the fact that
>> >many humans don't recognize bullshit when they see it and fool themselves
>> >into accepting theories with little or no explanatory power. IOW, the
>>
>> It is simple to explain Napoleon as a solar myth. Try it. Predictive power of
>
>Bullshit. Any such "explanation" will be utter nonsense.
That's why explanatory power in itself is such a vaguely measurable thing.
Explaining Napoleon as a solar myth makes as much sense as explaining Amon as a
solar myth, yet historians do so all the time. The difference, of course, is
that historians know Napoleon existed as a fact, you know, the historic facts
you said were so low compared to the motivations provided by psychohistory.
>> science is paramount. Why do you think relativists were so happy after that
>> particular eclipse when the light was bent by gravity?
>
>Einstein wouldn't have given a damn.
Einstein *did* give a damn. He was still alive, you know.
> And neither would I since unlike most
>scientists I don't need predictions to be able to separate sense from nonsense.
If the light had not curved, what would have happened to relativity?
>> You claim to understand superstrings?
>
>You claim to understand *anything*?
Yes. I understand my cat. Do you understand superstrings?
>> They don't predict gravity. You seem to ignore the meaning of prediction. They
>> AGREE with gravity, because gravity was known and preexistent.
>
>You're a moron.
And you are not addressing the issues.
>> >> It's a verification of the theory, which sure is handy. However,
>> >> there are probably an infinite number of theories that "predict" the same
>> >> equation.
>> >
>> >Idiot. There are only 6 such theories and they were all found to be dual
>> >to each other!
>>
>> There are only 6 theories that can possibly predict that equation? I find that
>> interesting.
>
>Fuck, you don't know the first thing you're talking about. "the equation"???
>What the fuck is that supposed to mean???????????
The equation you mentioned in the piece you deleted.
>> >And if I "replaced" the management in a company by firing every single
>> >manager (upper, middle AND lower), shot them all, and then brought in
>> >a completely different management from some other company, then I would
>> >not expect any continuity either.
>>
>> But you will. Experience in the real world says so.
>
>Only antedeluvian neanderthals with paralyzing cases of idiocy would
>expect any continuity. If the typical manager expects any continuity
>then that only proves they're as stupid as you are.
Hey, maybe you could learn a thing or two from neanderthals, since such events
have already happened, and continuity did exist. Maybe you are too evolved to
deal with reality.
>> > I don't know if you're an idiot for
>> >rhetorical purposes or you're just an idiot, but your expecting any
>> >continuity after, say, you fire all the employees in a corporation is
>> >ludicrous.
>>
>> It's trivial to prove: corporations have replaced all employees and had
>> continuity. It is a gradual process, though.
>
>Same with cells in the fucking human body, as I have already explained
>twenty fucking times.
And, again, you are starting from the wrong fact that all cells are replaced on
the human body. All cells are NOT EVER replaced in the human body. Say it two
hundred times, if you will, it won't make it right.
>This is the last straw, shitehead.
Ok, camel.
>> >If you replaced neurons in the brain one at a time, letting the new
>> >ones reattach according to their neighbours, then there would be
>> >continuity.
>>
>> That is, I must say, just guessing.
>
>Wrong, shithead. It's been done. You just have *NO* fucking idea about
>*ANYTHING* and you keep talking out of your ass. Fuck this; I'm a complete
>idiot for ever talking to you.
All cells in a human brain have been replaced one at a time? I very much doubt
such a thing has ever been done.
>> > The same thing with replacing employees one at a time.
>>
>> But you just said above that if all the employees were replaced continuity
>> would be lost. Seems you forgot to qualify your previous statement. Tsk, tsk.
>
><BANG!> <BANG!> <BANG!>
Poor Richard.
>> >Explain that to a psychologist specializing in the visual system.
>>
>> A psychologist usually has no clue on electromagnetism.
>
>Unless they're working on the visual system. You are such a fucking SHITHEAD!
You have such a bad temper.
>> >Transcendance doesn't mean that you are greater in all ways. Corporations
>> >transcend human beings from the mere fact that they are immortal while
>> >humans are not.
>>
>> Corporations are not immortal. Corporations cease to exist.
>
>immortal = does not age
>eternal = does not die
Stop redefining english, please: "immortal: exempt from death", says Mr.
Webster.
>You're such a shit for brains asshole.
You have a very poor grasp at words, or change the definitions when they don't
fit you.
>> You told me what to do to show the inadequacy of your definition.
>
>And you *needed* me to tell you that. This alone proves you're an imbecile.
I am just saying it to show I am following your lead.
>> I did. Now
>> you improved it. It still sucks.
>
>It matches MY conception of will just fine.
Your conception of will sucks.
>> >every entity on the level of abstraction of fundamental physics in our
>> >reality.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>> That assumes the existence of a single universe, I must say. Not a large
>
>Other universes are not part of our reality in any meaningful sense.
That's why it's not a large assumption for practical purposes.
>> assumption, at least practically. It also assumes that only entities with
>> material existence exist.
>
>No. It assumes that only entities with material existence materially exist.
>That's why I said AT THAT LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION!
>
>> Corporations don't like tax breaks. You will never see a corporation patting a
>> tax break in the back.
>
>You'll never see me patting chocolate ice cream on the back either. Doesn't
>mean that I don't like it, MORON!
chocolate ice cream lacks backs, and you lack any taste in metaphor.
>> >Still talking about psychopaths after it's been shown you know
>> >nothing on the subject? Imbecile!
>>
>> It has not been shown, at least not to my satisfaction.
>
>But you're an imbecile so your opinion hardly matters.
It matters to me. Call me selfish.
>> >Psychopaths have preferences and likes and dislikes. If they didn't
>> >then they would not seek power (since power is the ability to impose
>> >one's preferences on others).
>>
>> I was referring to the specific inability to like childrens YOU mentioned,
>> Richard.
>
>Cooperatives like children. Corporations actively dislike them.
Cooperatives don't like children. Cooperatives don't have feelings.
>> >They are so flawed, you're just going to great lengths to avoid passing
>> >a negative judgement on your friend Mr. Corporation.
>>
>> I really don't like corporations. I don't hold that against them, though.
>
>Same thing.
What is the same thing as what?
>> >*Hallucinating* holes is not the same thing as actually showing they exist.
>>
>> Denial. What a shame.
>
>Idiocy. What a waste.
Indeed. Stop.
>And "denial" is a technical term in psychology. Don't misuse it asshole.
Denial is also a non-technical term. But I was indeed using it in the technical
sense.
>> >Define thought and corporation, from which corporate decision-making will
>> >follow!
>>
>> If you claim we have no working definition, abstain from making judgement
>> values that require the definition.
>
>No, I claim that YOU have no working definition. I have one but it's not my
>job to produce it and since you're an utter idiot, I would gain nothing from
>producing a working definition.
Expressing value judgements based on a definition exclusive to you makes the
value jdgement exclusive to you. Therefore, the value judgement is subjective,
and undebatable. How convenient.
>> Can you change the functionality of a fully developed cell? I had never seen
>> that mentioned, but indeed I am not a biologist. Care to cite a pointer?
>
>D O L L Y.
Stop making things up.
In Dolly, the genetic material was removed from an embryo cell and replaced
with the DNA from a cell of the original sheep. The functionality of the embryo
cell was not changed, and the otiginal cell was simply gutted and discarted.
The functionality of the mature cell was not changed, since that cell was not
even present in the embryo.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:09:43 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 13:42:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>
>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> Marty wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Congratulations to all of you.
>
>>>>>> He's not only the club President, he's also a member!
>
>>>>> Your typical garbled, illogical, nonsensical comment.
>>>>> Maybe you should do some work on that "Grad School in Texas" thread.
>
>>>> Reading comprehension problems? How ironic, given you grammatically
>>>> incorrect statements.
>
>>> Your 'given you grammatically incorrect statements' is itself
>>> grammatically incorrect which is even more ironic. But what should
>
>> Now that's what I call a Tholen-war.
>
>Inappropriately.
Be quiet turd, you shamed us all with your cowardice.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:28:01 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> I have developed to different OS APIs. So, I am in position to say what counts
>> or doesn't count as an API, from a programmer point of view. What you are doing
>> in this post is like saying that only construction workers know about walls.
>> Stupid.
>
>Wrong, moron. If anything, I'm saying that only people who build their own
>homes know good design.
I am pretty sure some good architects live in houses built by others.
>> >> > My implying that increasing the number
>> >> >of APIs increases the complexity of the system is a simplification that
>> >> >generally holds because Unix/C++/Java people can't even *conceive* of
>> >> >transparent APIs.
>> >>
>> >> Opinion. A pretty popular thing to have.
>> >
>> >An "opinion" that is *widely* shared among Smalltalkers and anyone who
>> >knows a pure OO language.
>>
>> Sectarism. Popular, too.
>
>Wrong, imbecile. People who know pure OO languages well almost always know
>crappy procedural languages like C++ and Java. You couldn't find an example
>of the reverse if I gave you a century.
Your logic skills are pathetic.
There is no need, since you already gave me one. You see: if the person who
knows pure OO languages always knows C++ and Java, then he is an example of a
person who knows C++ and Java and knows pure OO languages.
Now give me the century.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:30:48 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> > Not every property of objects on the subvenient level
>> >transcends to the supervenient level. The fact that corporations
>> >do not have snivelling noses says nothing about whether or not they
>> >can be psychopaths.
>>
>> The fact that corporations are not human, does.
>
>No, cretin. Psychopathy is a property of BEINGS, not humans. Aliens
>could easily be psychopaths.
Assuming they exist, the definition of human would probably extend to include
them.
>> >I'm not going digging for you!
>>
>> Then, AFAICS, it is just your opinion.
>
>Yeah, but nobody cares about your opinion cause you're an imbecile.
And seing how you apparently, at least occasionally babble about things you
seem to know nothing about (dolly?), you are... let me say it in verse.
Repeat after me:
I am the very model
Of a modern major general...
>> >Consciousness is irrelevant. He *has* lost (some of) his rights
>>
>> Such as?
>
>The ability to piss when he wants to.
Not in the corporation I work for.
>> >And btw, there is no human right about freedom of religion, only FROM religion.
>>
>> The UN disagrees.
>
>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not perfect and this can be judged
>because human rights are *NOT* made in such declarations, they're only DECLARED.
Sure. The UN, however, only declares rights they deem existing, one would
assume. So, they would disagree with you about there not being a right to
religion.
>> >Corporations buy back their own stock all the time. Toys 'R Us did it a
>> >while ago and it expected to have to do it for years to come.
>>
>> Not *all* their stock.
>
>They expected to do so indefinitely. (They expected to run an enormous
>profit indefinitely.)
Again, not *all* their stock. You see, if a corporation announced a plan to buy
back all the stock, the natural price point for stock would be exactly the
fraction of the assets of the corporation (I'm guessing, but it sounds natural).
So, the corporation would have to sell all assets to buy all stocks. And the
corp. would own all the stocks to no asset. The corporation would have
self-destructed. However, I am no economist, so if someone with a clue cares to
clear this up for me, I'll be thankful.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:21:57 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:37:10 -0400, "David T. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.sys.mac.advocacy 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 me.
Insight evades you, pontificator.
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:23:31 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:17:24 -0400, "David T. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>
>
>Marty wrote:
>>
>> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>> >
>> > Marty wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "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!
>> >
>> > Your typical garbled, illogical, nonsensical comment.
>> > Maybe you should do some work on that "Grad School in Texas" thread.
>>
>> Reading comprehension problems? How ironic, given you grammatically incorrect
>> statements.
>
>Your 'given you grammatically incorrect statements' is itself
>grammatically incorrect which is even more ironic. But what should
>anyone expect from someone whose thoughts are so poorly formed that he
>writes illogical, nonsense sentences about club presidents who are also
>members?
>
>>
>> Meanwhile, I see you're still hypocritically contributing to off-topic
>> threads. No surprise there.
>
>Unlike you, I have pointed out that the thread in question does not
>belong in the newsgroups in which it is being posted. No surprise that
>understanding eludes you on this point.
What does the "T" stand for, david?
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:27:00 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:04:35 -0400, "David T. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> "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!
>>
>> Fuck off, idiot.
>
>Same to you.
Ouch, that must've hurt.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
