Linux-Advocacy Digest #656, Volume #29 Sat, 14 Oct 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (sfcybear)
Re: Astroturfing ("Les Mikesell")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:36:28 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments
>
> How ironic. This is your third use of this opening sentence.
>
> > which futilely attempt to characterize my replies to your personal
> > attacks and name-calling as 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2
> > developers.
>
> Incorrect. For the umpteenth time, I have accused you of lying. Nonetheless,
> you have harassed and denigrated me by the definitions I have cited in the
> phrases I have cited. You have not contested this fact with any evidence or
> reasoning. Here's some new ones that just popped up today that seemed
> particularly appropriate:
>
> DTJ] I have never met him or spoken with him so I don't know.
> DTJ] Is he over 18?
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
>
> DTJ] His comments have convinced me that is pointless to attempt to
> DTJ] reason with him.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
>
> > You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > developers.
>
> Incorrect. For the umpteenth time, I have accused you of lying. Nonetheless,
> you have harassed and denigrated me by the definitions I have cited in the
> phrases I have cited. You have not contested this fact with any evidence or
> reasoning.
>
> > For that, you will have to answer.
>
> I already have answered more than was required of me.
>
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You continue to repeat the same arguments
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> > >
> > > > which futilely attempt to characterize my replys to your personal
> > > > attacks and name-calling
> > >
> > > Which themselves were replies to your personal attacks on others and
> > > namecalling of others. How ironic.
> > >
> > > > as 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers.
> > >
> > > I am an OS/2 developer and I've pointed out how your comments are both
> > > harassment and denigrating. You haven't refuted a single one, I'll add.
> > >
> > > > You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > > > developers.
> > >
> > > Classic pontification.
> > >
> > > > For that, you will have to answer.
> > >
> > > I already have answered as much as I am required. Even moreso perhaps, as I
> > > have bothered to post another response to you, which was not required.
> > >
> > > > Reposting the same arguments in this forum only digs a deeper hole for
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > I've cited my evidence which you haven't been able to refute. Looks like
> > > you're the one in the hole.
> > >
> > > > And you fail to understand the significance of your claim to be an
> > > > OS/2 developer.
> > >
> > > Not at all. I develop software for OS/2. Period.
> > >
> > > > I am not contesting that you are an OS/2 developer.
> > >
> > > So why have you yet to establish it, referring to me as an "alleged" developer
> > > or some such tone?
> > >
> > > > Rather, I am pointing to this claim of yours as increasing the damage
> > >
> > > You're erroneously presupposing some "damage" that can be "increased".
> > >
> > > > that your false accusation of 'harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > > > developers'
> > >
> > > I've already pointed out why your statement is a lie. If I've got something
> > > wrong, feel free to point it out. You haven't done so to date, and instead
> > > have preferred to continually pontificate on the matter.
> > >
> > > > has done by adding undeserved credibility to your false accusation.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you claim it is "undeserved"? Hard evidence was presented.
> > > It was repeated. Though it is understandably very damaging to your position,
> > > repetition earns it no more credence than it had the first time it was
> > > posted. It was repeated to aid your apparently lacking understanding on the
> > > matter and to encourage you to attempt to refute it, since you feel so
> > > strongly that it is incorrect. One can lead a horse to water...
> > >
> > > > I recommend that you confer with competent legal counsel on this
> > >
> > > Why bother? Are you interested in wasting your funds on unnecessary legal
> > > fees?
> > >
> > > > and refrain from further comments on your false accusation until such
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > I'll say what I choose, when I choose. That's what this country is all
> > > about. I told the truth to the best of my knowledge and pointed to facts
> > > underlining said truth. You have merely pontificated to the contrary. Looks
> > > like I was right about you all along.
> > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You repeat your arguments to yourself
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
> > >
> > > > > > and incorrectly seem to feel that that gives them weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you perceive that I "seem to feel" is irrelevant. Nonetheless, your
> > > > > statement is quite ironic, given that your posting consisted solely of a
> > > > > restatement of your arguments with no supporting evidence for your position.
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
> > >
> > > > > > You have accused me of harassing and denigrating OS/2 developers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect. I have accused you of lying, and rightfully so.
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
> > >
> > > > > > That is completely false (and ridiculous as well for reasons you are not
> > > > > > yet aware of). Glatt accused me of being on a mission to harass and
> > > > > > denigrate OS/2 developers. You have supported his false accusation
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect. More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
> > >
> > > > > > by publicly posting that: 1) you consider yourself to be an OS/2
> > > > > > developer
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not alone in that consideration.
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
> > >
> > > > > > and 2) My statement denying any harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > > > > > developers is false.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have shown your harassment and denigration of myself by providing a
> > > > > definition of each word and applying it to various quotes of yours which were
> > > > > addressed to (or should I say "at") me.
> > > > >
> > > > > ha�rass (hrs, h-rs)
> > > > > v. tr. ha�rassed, ha�rass�ing, ha�rass�es.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> > > > > 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> > > > > 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
> > > > >
> > > > > den�i�grate (dn-grt)
> > > > > v. tr. den�i�grat�ed, den�i�grat�ing, den�i�grates.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> > > > > 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> > > > > impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> > > > > and confused as Marty's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> > > > > fifth-graders.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> > > > > personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:37:45 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments
>
> How ironic.
>
> > which futilely attempt to characterize my replys to your personal
> > attacks and name-calling
>
> Which themselves were replies to your personal attacks on others and
> namecalling of others. How ironic.
>
> > as 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers.
>
> I am an OS/2 developer and I've pointed out how your comments are both
> harassment and denigrating. You haven't refuted a single one, I'll add.
>
> > You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > developers.
>
> Classic pontification.
>
> > For that, you will have to answer.
>
> I already have answered as much as I am required. Even moreso perhaps, as I
> have bothered to post another response to you, which was not required.
>
> > Reposting the same arguments in this forum only digs a deeper hole for
> > you.
>
> I've cited my evidence which you haven't been able to refute. Looks like
> you're the one in the hole.
>
> > And you fail to understand the significance of your claim to be an
> > OS/2 developer.
>
> Not at all. I develop software for OS/2. Period.
>
> > I am not contesting that you are an OS/2 developer.
>
> So why have you yet to establish it, referring to me as an "alleged" developer
> or some such tone?
>
> > Rather, I am pointing to this claim of yours as increasing the damage
>
> You're erroneously presupposing some "damage" that can be "increased".
>
> > that your false accusation of 'harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > developers'
>
> I've already pointed out why your statement is a lie. If I've got something
> wrong, feel free to point it out. You haven't done so to date, and instead
> have preferred to continually pontificate on the matter.
>
> > has done by adding undeserved credibility to your false accusation.
>
> On what basis do you claim it is "undeserved"? Hard evidence was presented.
> It was repeated. Though it is understandably very damaging to your position,
> repetition earns it no more credence than it had the first time it was
> posted. It was repeated to aid your apparently lacking understanding on the
> matter and to encourage you to attempt to refute it, since you feel so
> strongly that it is incorrect. One can lead a horse to water...
>
> > I recommend that you confer with competent legal counsel on this
>
> Why bother? Are you interested in wasting your funds on unnecessary legal
> fees?
>
> > and refrain from further comments on your false accusation until such
> > time.
>
> I'll say what I choose, when I choose. That's what this country is all
> about. I told the truth to the best of my knowledge and pointed to facts
> underlining said truth. You have merely pontificated to the contrary. Looks
> like I was right about you all along.
>
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You repeat your arguments to yourself
> > >
> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > and incorrectly seem to feel that that gives them weight.
> > >
> > > What you perceive that I "seem to feel" is irrelevant. Nonetheless, your
> > > statement is quite ironic, given that your posting consisted solely of a
> > > restatement of your arguments with no supporting evidence for your position.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > You have accused me of harassing and denigrating OS/2 developers.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. I have accused you of lying, and rightfully so.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > That is completely false (and ridiculous as well for reasons you are not
> > > > yet aware of). Glatt accused me of being on a mission to harass and
> > > > denigrate OS/2 developers. You have supported his false accusation
> > >
> > > Incorrect. More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > by publicly posting that: 1) you consider yourself to be an OS/2
> > > > developer
> > >
> > > I am not alone in that consideration.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > and 2) My statement denying any harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > > > developers is false.
> > >
> > > I have shown your harassment and denigration of myself by providing a
> > > definition of each word and applying it to various quotes of yours which were
> > > addressed to (or should I say "at") me.
> > >
> > > ha�rass (hrs, h-rs)
> > > v. tr. ha�rassed, ha�rass�ing, ha�rass�es.
> > >
> > > 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> > > 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> > > 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
> > >
> > > den�i�grate (dn-grt)
> > > v. tr. den�i�grat�ed, den�i�grat�ing, den�i�grates.
> > >
> > > 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> > > 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
> > >
> > > DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1
> > >
> > > DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> > > impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1
> > >
> > > DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> > > and confused as Marty's.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> > > fifth-graders.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > >
> > > DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> > > personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > >
> > > ...
>
> Note: no response.
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:40:58 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments
>
> How ironic. This is your fourth use of this opening sentence.
>
> > which futilely attempt to characterize my replies to your personal
> > attacks and name-calling as 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2
> > developers.
>
> Incorrect. For the umpteenth time, I have accused you of lying. Nonetheless,
> you have harassed and denigrated me by the definitions I have cited in the
> phrases I have cited. You have not contested this fact with any evidence or
> reasoning. Here's some new ones that just popped up today that seemed
> particularly appropriate:
>
> DTJ] I have never met him or spoken with him so I don't know.
> DTJ] Is he over 18?
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
>
> DTJ] His comments have convinced me that is pointless to attempt to
> DTJ] reason with him.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
>
> > You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > developers.
>
> Incorrect. For the umpteenth time, I have accused you of lying. Nonetheless,
> you have harassed and denigrated me by the definitions I have cited in the
> phrases I have cited. You have not contested this fact with any evidence or
> reasoning.
>
> > For that, you will have to answer.
>
> I already have answered more than was required of me.
>
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > chrisv wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Psst... I am an OS/2 developer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It looks to me like you're doing the harassing....
> > > > >
> > > > > Take another look at where this thread started. Then examine threads with
>the
> > > > > name "Wenham" in the title (or any correspondence between David and Chris
> > > > > Wenham).
> > > >
> > > > You disagree with my opinions about Wenham's comments...
> > >
> > > I pointed out your hypocrisy on the matter. Are you still unable/unwilling to
> > > comprehend this simple point?
> > >
> > > > > I'm not denying that I am returning the harassment,
> > > >
> > > > You have not been harassed but you are admitting that you are harassing
> > > > me...
> > >
> > > Bzzt. I already presented the evidence showing your harassment of me. You
> > > are once again pontificating on the matter. Here's my evidence again, which
> > > you have yet to refute in any form:
> > >
> > > ha�rass (hrs, h-rs)
> > > v. tr. ha�rassed, ha�rass�ing, ha�rass�es.
> > >
> > > 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> > > 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> > > 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
> > >
> > > den�i�grate (dn-grt)
> > > v. tr. den�i�grat�ed, den�i�grat�ing, den�i�grates.
> > >
> > > 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> > > 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
> > >
> > > DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1
> > >
> > > DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> > > impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1
> > >
> > > DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> > > and confused as Marty's.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> > > fifth-graders.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > >
> > > DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> > > personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > but I "didn't start the fire". David feels that he should be able to
> > > > > tell us who the good guys and bad guys are and what people should and
> > > > > should not say.
> > > >
> > > > Again, you disagree with my posted opinions about 1) Wenham's pattern of
> > > > posts, 2) the ugly Tholen "insanity" thread, and 3) the large number of
> > > > off-topic posts.
> > >
> > > Again you show evidence of a complete failure to comprehend 2 consecutive
> > > sentences I've written in our recent exchanges. I stated no opinion on these
> > > matters. Rather, I've pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in your opinions.
> > >
> > > > Rather than "step in" and offer constructive comments with a differing
> > > > opinion,
> > >
> > > Like your constructive comments toward Chris Wenham and Aaron R. Kulkis, for
> > > example? Hypocrite.
> > >
> > > > you have chosen to make continuous personal attacks and name-calling
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> > >
> > > > culminating in a false accusation against me of 'harassment of OS/2
> > > > developers.'
> > >
> > > Incorrect. I claimed that one of your statements is a lie. You still fail to
> > > comprehend this fact.
> > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, he screwed up and started discussions that fell under
> > > > > his own "should not say" category, and that's when I stepped in.
> > > >
> > > > That is your opinion (which I strongly disagree with) and you were and
> > > > are free to express it.
> > >
> > > You were free to express valid reasons for your strong disagreement, but
> > > failed to do so.
> > >
> > > > But you are not free to falsely accuse me of harassment of 'OS/2
> > > > developers' or of anyone else.
> > >
> > > I accused you of lying. And rightfully so. Re-examine the original exchange
> > > before you waste any more time.
> > >
> > > > > He also tends to repeat himself in preference to providing evidence to
> > > > > back up anything he says (look for his references to "garbled,
> > > > > illogical", etc.), but that's another issue.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is.
> > >
> > > One which further establishes your hypocrisy and ability to pontificate.
> > >
> > > > > In short, take another look. Take note of who is providing evidence
> > > > > and who is "snipping" the "irrelevant ranting".
> > > >
> > > > Trimming portions of posts in reply is the privelege of the person
> > > > making the reply.
> > >
> > > So is failure to provide evidence, empty pontifications, and hypocrisy
> > > according to your book.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:41:33 GMT
Pathetic the guy has forwarding working:
> >> Now I can ping IP addresses through the Linux box,
but has a DNS configureration issue:
> >>but I can't ping
> >FQDN's,
This may or may not have caused a problem with ANY masq software. We
can not know untill we get a look at what the DNS configurations are.
This just shows that you do not understand what you are talking about.
Sad attempt to confuse the issue buy posting a problem without enough
information to truly identify the problem. You're cring "wolf" here.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here is a post from the firewall group. I have erased the names to
> protect the innocent.
>
> >Looks like you're missing the IPs for your DNS server(s). Your ISP
> >may be
> >giving your RH box an IP address, are they also dynamically giving
you
> >the
> >DNS numbers? If so, the next step is make sure your W98 clients are
> >getting the LAN side IP address of your RH box as their gateway
> >address.
> >
> >--
> >
> >"xxxxxxxxx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:strF5.2595$7h7.45971@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..
> >> Hey to all,
> >> I know this is a perennial post here, but I'm not finding
> >the info
> >> that I need (or at least not in a way that I understand). I'm
> >setting up a
> >> RedHat 6.1 firewall (first experience with Linux, I have a couple
of
> >years
> >> of experience networking with M$) through a cable modem. RedHat
is
> >> receiving an IP from my ISP's server, and logging in for me. I
have
> >DHCPD
> >> configured, so RH is assigning my W98 clients IPs, (my subnet is a
> >class A
> >> w/ a netmask of 255.255.255.0) and those boxes can ping one
another.
> >My
> >> goal is to have a firewall that passes web pages, email & FTP on to
> >my
> >> client machines.
> >> Earlier today, I used EMACS to creat a
> >"/etc/rc.d/rc.modules" file
> >> containing...
> >>
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_cuseeme
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_irc
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_ftp
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_raudio
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_quake
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_vdolive
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_mfw
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_user
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_autofw
> >> /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_portfw
> >>
> >> Then, at a prompt I typed
> >>
> >> /sbin/ipchains -P forward DENY
> >> /sbin/ipchains -A forward -j MASQ -s 12.34.56.0/24 -d 0.0.0.0/0
> >>
> >> Now I can ping IP addresses through the Linux box, but I can't ping
> >FQDN's,
> >> and I can't pull up web pages. I also tried FTP, nogo. So, what
> >gives?
> >> What am I overlooking? I obtained all of this info from here
> >> (http://www.vortech.net/rrlinux/redmasq.htm). I did read the
> >IPCHAINS HOWTO
> >> & scanned through the MAN pages for ipchains, and either I'm
> >overlooking the
> >> answer, or neither contains what I'm looking for.
> >> Can someone help? Also, how will I need to configure my
> >browser
> >> when I'm ready to surf? Will I put the IP address of the close
side
> >of my
> >> router & port 80 in the proxy info box, or do I just leave that
> >blank?
> >> Thanks in advance for any assistance.
> >>
> >>
> >> -xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> >> Linux Wannabe
>
> This is a piece of cake with either Norton Firewall, ZoneAlarm (free)
> or BlackIce or SonicWall which I believe is also free for personal
> use.
>
> Install it and it will do exactly what this poor soul is trying to do
> as well as a hell of a lot more.
>
> I have to wonder how many hours this person played with Emacs to even
> get this far?
>
> claire
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:51:19 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sure.
>
> Take a look at trade rag articles from a year ago say summer of 1999
> and take a look now.
>
> Linux was on the cover of Infoworld constantly.
>
> Notice a large decrease in the number of Linux articles?
>
> Last year Linux was the "babe of the press" and it was everywhere on
> television in mainstream press and so forth.
>
> See much of that lately?
I guess you have to have lots of court cases pending to make
the press these days - but that is some other company...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:51:47 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
> characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
> 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
> accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
> you will have to answer.
Just shut up, blowhard. This is the 5th time that you've repeated this
blurb. How ironic.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
