Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Chad Myers")
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Adam Warner")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (STATIC66)
Re: The real issue (Steve Mading)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Chad Myers")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: GPL & freedom ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Chad Myers")
Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?) (Ian Pulsford)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Loren Petrich claims THIEVERY = LEGITIMATE WORK ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 02:03:04 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rgmo7$jri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Drestin and Chad,
>
> > Actually, you need only two copies of Windows 2000 professional - this
> > will provide you with the RAID...
>
> I thought you were both wrong about this but I didn't want to contradict
> you before I got the answer from Microsoft's web site:
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/resources/reskit/samplechapters/fnc
b/fncb_dis_gxih.asp
>
> (NB: FT stands for fault tolerant)
>
> "Creating new FT sets, such as mirrored and RAID-5 volumes, is only
> available on computers running Windows 2000 Server. The disk must be
> upgraded to dynamic disk before these volumes can be created. You can,
> however, use a computer running Windows 2000 Professional to create
> mirrored and RAID-5 volumes on a remote computer running Windows 2000
> Server."
>
> Any response?
Yep, I read through the help and you're correct. This must be a new
thing in Win2K pro, because I am 99% certain that NT 4 Workstation
would allow Mirror sets, at least (not RAID-5, I'm pretty sure).
Didn't we agree, earlier, though that you'd need Win2K server anyhow?
I'm not sure if you answered me on this.
Ok, so Win2K Server OEM is around $500. ~$1000 for two copies. Both
come with 5-client licenses. CALs are around $75-100 per 5-pack
but get cheaper when you get into the 25 - 100 CAL ranges.
You haven't said how many users you have, so I can't quote you a price.
With Win2K Server you have many more features now anyhow, so it makes
it worth your while.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:27:02 +1300
Hi Chad,
> Yep, I read through the help and you're correct. This must be a new
> thing in Win2K pro, because I am 99% certain that NT 4 Workstation would
> allow Mirror sets, at least (not RAID-5, I'm pretty sure).
Thanks for responding honestly to a crap, arrogantly idiotic poster.
Adam
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 02:34:22 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:43:59 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>> > The Marxism here is your posture of being an exploited, oppressed
>> > worker.
>> Wrong. That's HUMAN RIGHTS.
>
> So Marxism is human rights?
>
>> The human right to keep what you earn without having it confiscated
>> by the government.
>
> It's not confiscated. It's legally mandated. The law says pay taxes,
>and if you wish to break the law, then don't call yourself law-abiding.
>
> I'm surprised that Mr. Kulkis is not organizing a big tax strike.
Kinda like purgury, it is legally mandated you will not lie under
oath. If you do you should be PROSECUTED..
But thats Ok right?? after all according to you alll he did was help
monica practice blowjobs...
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[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
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 02:40:38 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:34:41 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Millions of people go to college while earning
>> what is considered to be "poverty level" incomes.
>
> ROTFL. Their tuition is always subsidized, however, whether by their
>parents or by government-backed loan guarantees. Furthermore, most
>college students come from middle-class or upper-class homes, meaning
>that they got much more in handouts from their parents than most poor
>kids do.
So a parent being responsible and planning for the future of their
offspring rather than turning to the government with an outstretched
hand is somehow bad. That is not a handout its called responsibility.
>
> Also, dealing in illegal drugs is not living off of handouts.
NO it is criminal and illegal and if it wasn't for you bleeding heart
liberal types, it could be met with SWIFT PUNISHMENT..
>
> Even theft is not living off of handouts; victims of theft ought to
>be glad that thieves are trying to provide for themselves.
No they should arm themselves..
Advocating theft as an alternative to welfare is hardly a responsible
arguement. But nothing much about liberalism is responsible..
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: 5 Oct 2000 02:40:18 GMT
Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:01:16 GMT, Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick
: SNIP
:>>I don't think so. I'm not pro Microsoft at all.
:>
:> Bullshit. You're claiming that MS has the best desktop
:> and all the best apps. You can't get MUCH more pro
:> Microsoft than that.
: I think it is foolish to advocate Linux based on false premises. That was
: the issue I was raising. As a desktop OS, W2K is superior for most users
: IMO. I didn't mention other systems, only W2K and Linux.
: Lots of Windows users will be disappointed when they find that the Linux
: desktop experience is not as smooth as they expected and that apps like
: Wordperfect and Netscape are slow and crash-prone compared to the Windows
: alternatives. Sure, Linux experts can achieve anything with ease using
: Linux, but experts are few. The majority are probably
: intimidated by the amount of control and tweakability that Linux offers,
: and all the pitfalls that go with it.
: Linux advocacy should be about open-source IMO, not desktop use. For server
: purposes, now thats another matter.
The problem with this is that it is Microsoft's strategy to make Windows
on the desktop integrated with Windows on the server. As long as they
have dominance in one area, they will use to to lever dominance in the
other. They don't like open network protocol standards. They have
made it their goal to eliminate the open choices that result from
adhering to open standards. As long as they do that, Linux advocates
can't really afford to be soft on Microsoft. I wouldn't mind living
in a world where Windows still had the majority, but worked seamlessly
with other competing systems so I could use something else (Linux) and
still be mostly compatable with "the masses" who go pick Windows. But
MS doesn't want that world to exist, and they've made it their goal to
prevent that world from existing. So long as they want to destroy my
favorite toys, I have to consider them "the enemy". If they changed
their tune, I might reconsider.
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 21:53:34 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> I bought Solaris 7 both x86 and sparc versions about a year or so ago
I bought the same package for my old SPARC. Somehow, I never saw
the point in Solaris x86.
> for $10 plus shipping. Looks like now they are only selling Solaris 8
> for $75. But you can install it on as many machines as you
> like. That's certainly cheaper than W2K.
>
If you want commercial applications for Solaris 8, it won't be cheaper.
You'd be
better off a BSD.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:00:20 -0500
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ret4q$9cp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8re8kn$cjv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> I think a lot would depend on how they did it. Remember that the rules are
> different when you have a monopoly. Linux distros offer a lot of free
> software that you could easily download (for free) if it wasn't included
> on the cd. Because there is real competition between the linux distros,
Quite a few of the distros aren't commercial competitors.
> some will also make deals to offer proprietary software. You would get
> laughed out of court if you tried to sue red had for forcing you to pay
> for a bundled mozilla and netscape when you only use lynx. You can
Would you? The problem with litigation is the precident it sets. What you
have used against your enemy can be turned on you at a later date.
> download the whole thing for free anyhow, or easily switch to caldera,
> corel, slackware, etc.
It isn't quite so easy, unless you enjoy reinstalling your operating system.
>
> Anyone who actually paid attention to the court documents in the MS
> anti-trust case can tell you that MS did not get in trouble for including
> IE with windows. Rather, it was because of the lengths to which they went
> to get everyone using IE instead of Netscape. If all they wanted to do was
> improve windows, why not take the WinME approach - make IE available as a
> free download, and include it with some bug fixes in the next release of
Perhaps they didn't see the need in making everyone download it? Other OS
providers
bundle web browsers. Including at least one that is written by them (Sun).
> windows? Instead, they spent millions of dollars to get everyone and their
> brothers to use IE _now_. Where is the economic sense in that? It was
> about protecting the applications barrier to entry, plain and simple.
How so? IE is an open framework that is available to be used by any
programmer.
>
> With the market share that MS windows has, and the corresponding lack of
> competition, they have no incentive to include any software that they
> don't absolutely have to. (Also, my not including any extra software with
If the had this level of market share, they could raise prices. They
haven't.
> windows proper, MS gives the OEMs a way to distinguish themselves from
> each other).
>
> And, with the market share that they have, almost any program they include
A more accurate phrase would be "with the enemies they have".
> in windows is going to open them up to possible litigation. Adding winzip
> wouldn't be to controversial, perhaps, but who believes that the sudden
> interest in WiMP is actually motivated by a sincere desire to help their
Windows Media Player has been around for quite some time.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:01:04 GMT
"STATIC66" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:34:41 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Wrong. Millions of people go to college while earning
> >> what is considered to be "poverty level" incomes.
> >
> > ROTFL. Their tuition is always subsidized, however, whether by their
> >parents or by government-backed loan guarantees. Furthermore, most
> >college students come from middle-class or upper-class homes, meaning
> >that they got much more in handouts from their parents than most poor
> >kids do.
>
> So a parent being responsible and planning for the future of their
> offspring rather than turning to the government with an outstretched
> hand is somehow bad. That is not a handout its called responsibility.
I believe this part started because Aaron was complaining about how
our money is being bilked by the worthless poor who seem to have no
reason to get off of our money (aka welfare) because it just keeps
coming without responsibility.
The argument was made that many college students (e.g. people trying
to make something of their lives) are at or below the poverty line,
so not all people that are poor are worthless.
Aaron then rebutted that argument with the above statement.
> > Also, dealing in illegal drugs is not living off of handouts.
>
> NO it is criminal and illegal and if it wasn't for you bleeding heart
> liberal types, it could be met with SWIFT PUNISHMENT..
I don't believe Aaron is anything of the sort. Perhaps you misunderstood
him? I haven't been following this particular thread, unfortunately,
but in the past Aaron is typically very conservative. Perhaps he was
illustrating that enterprising kids are so repressed by our socialist
government that the only way they can see to be enterprising and make
huge profits is by slinging?
> >
> > Even theft is not living off of handouts; victims of theft ought to
> >be glad that thieves are trying to provide for themselves.
>
> No they should arm themselves..
>
> Advocating theft as an alternative to welfare is hardly a responsible
> arguement. But nothing much about liberalism is responsible..
Again, I think you're reading him wrong. I think he's trying to say
what I mentioned above...
I think I can sum up his point by saying:
"Even thieves are better than welfare recipients because thieves are
trying to make their lives better".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:01:49 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rgotg$s4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Chad,
>
> > Yep, I read through the help and you're correct. This must be a new
> > thing in Win2K pro, because I am 99% certain that NT 4 Workstation would
> > allow Mirror sets, at least (not RAID-5, I'm pretty sure).
>
> Thanks for responding honestly to a crap, arrogantly idiotic poster.
When you post facts, I can discuss with you. When you go onto your
ignorant tyraids about how evil and unresponsive MS is, then yes, you
are an arrogant idiot.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:23:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ones which went into Mars at 62 degree angles were W2k equipped.
I'd like to see documentation that the OS onboard that spacecraft
wasW2k. I do not believe it.
The official reason was that one processor talked in m/s while another
processor talked in ft/s. OOps.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:22:52 -0700
"Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rgbad$6f4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> | "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | >
> |
> | [...] If your model works, then *great*. It'll kill off the old
> | model eventually by itself. It does not need the help of removing
> | the ability for people to make a living out of creating
> | intellectual property for it to overturn the old model. If it
> | works, it'll take over on its own.
>
> That's almost exactly what I said about the GPL, that it only poses a
> threat if it is a better model.
OK... but still, I don't see why copyright protection should be removed,
regardless of whether a profit is being made off the copies or not.
> | One of my room-mates is an artist. Personally, I think his stuff
> | is the hottest I've ever seen. (It's very Dave McKean). He
> | recently quit his job as a store clerk to concentrate on working
> | on art full time. He's scraping by. However, he keeps negatives
> | and positives of everything he does, so that at some point, he can
> | sell posters.
> |
> | Without copyright protection, he can't do that.
>
> Sure, you're right about that, but what I've been trying to say is
> that with copyright protection that protects profits instead of
> creating profits, he can. Nobody else will be able to sell his
> posters for profit. Recall that currently the copyright creates
> profits by taking a zero-value copy and allowing the holder to charge
> for it. The copy itself has zero value because anybody can copy it
> anytime, effortlessly.
Actually, that depends on how you look at it -- certainly, the cost of
creating the copy is zero. But what about the costs of creating the
original? How do you amortize them over time?
Say it takes me $250,000 to produce an album -- that's recording studio
time, pay for the artists, cost of advertizing, costs of marketing, cost of
media, cost of warehousing and storing original DAT tapes, cost of obtaining
trademarks and copyright on the materials, cost of artwork, buying shelf
space (yep, they charge), etc etc etc.
Now, I charge an (outrageous) $15 per copy. The retailer takes half of this
typically. Distribution costs are about 10-15%. That leaves $6.75. Cost of
goods on that is maybe $1.00 (CD pressing, CD case, inlay printing). And
that's on the high end... which makes it $5.75 in gross profit on each copy.
I have to sell 45,000 copies before I break even -- that's before I make any
profit.
Now, assume that 1 person buys it, and because of copyright law changes, 20
people download it online or otherwise duplicate it without profit. Assuming
that those 20 people would have bought it anyway (which is the unknown in
this argument), that means that my market is twenty times smaller. Or,
reversing it, I have to *effectively* sell 870,000 copies before I break
even. (Or rather, I have to have 870,000 people willing to buy it before it
becomes profitable for me to produce it).
Now, you might have issue with that argument, but that's pretty much how it
would work. Where my market had to have been 1 person before, it now has to
be 20 people, which is a massive increase. And that's before you expect any
return on your investment. A typical expectation might be that you at least
get what you paid for it on top of the costs -- in order to do so, your
market now has to be 1,740,000 people in size.
What this *will* do is eliminate the record companies. Which means that
people will have to rent studio time, find server space, and publish online.
And without the marketing to back it up, I don't know if it's likely that
they would break even.
> I also know a fantastic artist trying to make a living off his music.
> You all can help him out by listening to his songs from mp3.com.
> Currently he has $5 in so-called 'earnings'. But help prove that
> this model can work!
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/751/751383.html (best so far IMO)
Good idea -- keep pushing it. Hopefully it will work -- but I don't see it
toppling over until everyone has broadband -- maybe 5 or 10 years.
> Also, please contact your representative and have him vote for HR
> 5275, the "Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000", sponsored by
> Virginia's own technology leader in the House, Rick Boucher (et al):
>
> http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/103/music_owners_listening_rig.html
You know, I'd even settle for a clarification of the rights you get when you
buy media. I've bought lots of tapes and CDs -- all I want is the right to
be able to download that music onto my hard drive. I can see a case for
tapes not being a valid criterion for doing so -- but when I buy a CD, I
want the right to be able to get that data in a different format. Especially
if (as happens a lot with my CDs), the CDs get damaged.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:26:22 GMT
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The ones which went into Mars at 62 degree angles were W2k equipped.
>
> I'd like to see documentation that the OS onboard that spacecraft
> wasW2k. I do not believe it.
>
> The official reason was that one processor talked in m/s while another
> processor talked in ft/s. OOps.
I believe the operative phrase here is "D'oh!"
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:49:42 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?)
Jacques Guy wrote:
> http://boss.afr.com.au/people/20001003/A30068-2000Oct3.html
>
> afr.com is the Web site of the Australian Financial
> Review, a daily financial newspaper. And no, "accessable"
> is not a spelling mistake: some bright bulbs at McQuarie
> university in New South Wales decided Australia needed
> an Australian dictionary, and decided to rationalize
>
That's "rationalise" not "rationalize" ;-)
> the spelling. So you end up with "accessable". I don't
> know if they made incomprehensible "incomprehensable",
> I don't own a McQuarie dictionary and never will --
> I wouldn't even _steal_ one. The thought processes of
> the local M$ honcho, Houghton, appear to be about on par with
> the McQuarie dictionary.
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 5 Oct 2000 03:54:54 GMT
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:01:04 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
STATIC66 is replying to Petrich. It's amusing to see you jumping through
hoops to defend him. BTW, if you're not convinced that Kulkis is a
rabid zealot, read his posts on OSs.
>I believe this part started because Aaron was complaining about how
>our money is being bilked by the worthless poor who seem to have no
>reason to get off of our money (aka welfare) because it just keeps
>coming without responsibility.
This is, simply put, a lie. Welfare is *not* a viable career, because you
cannot collect welfare checks forever. I don't understand why the
rightists keep lying about this, especially since I've corrected them
several times.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [OT] Loren Petrich claims THIEVERY = LEGITIMATE WORK
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:12:25 -0400
STATIC66 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:34:41 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Wrong. Millions of people go to college while earning
> >> what is considered to be "poverty level" incomes.
> >
> > ROTFL. Their tuition is always subsidized, however, whether by their
> >parents or by government-backed loan guarantees. Furthermore, most
> >college students come from middle-class or upper-class homes, meaning
> >that they got much more in handouts from their parents than most poor
> >kids do.
>
> So a parent being responsible and planning for the future of their
> offspring rather than turning to the government with an outstretched
> hand is somehow bad. That is not a handout its called responsibility.
> >
> > Also, dealing in illegal drugs is not living off of handouts.
>
> NO it is criminal and illegal and if it wasn't for you bleeding heart
> liberal types, it could be met with SWIFT PUNISHMENT..
> >
> > Even theft is not living off of handouts; victims of theft ought to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >be glad that thieves are trying to provide for themselves.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, Loren-Doofus.
I'm gonna go ride the BART, and then, while you're at work,
come visit you and...since you say it's legitimate work....
steal all of your stuff out of your apartment...
and then...because then all of your stuff will be mine....but
I really won't have an interest in actually keeping it...I
think I'll smash every bit of it to pieces.
Tell us, Loren....how do you feel about that.....
>
> No they should arm themselves..
>
> Advocating theft as an alternative to welfare is hardly a responsible
> arguement. But nothing much about liberalism is responsible..
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
