Linux-Advocacy Digest #751, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Ed Allen)
Re: What is user friendly? (LShaping)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Scott Gardner)
Re: What is user friendly? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: C# ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Frederico S.
=?iso-8859-1?q?Mu=F1oz?=)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Mike Martinet)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(Johan Kullstam)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:18:55
>>
>>All of this is irrelevant -- they aren't obliged to lower prices just
>>because they can.
If they had competition to deal with they would either lower prices
or lose customers to their competition.
You seem fixated on the Linux "competition" as being some barometer
of what a "fair market price" should be.
That ignores that those prices are set by aiming just under the M$
desktop price for more functionality than DataCenter delivers.
That is apples and oranges. M$ has no competition for the desktop
systems where they have had the preloads tied up since the early DOS
days and they are using that monopoly to support their invasion of
the high end server market.
Their prices on the high end are ignoring the much lower Linux and
BSDI prices which should be providing competition.
Their being able to ignore the prices of their putative
"competition" is evidence that they are trying to use their desktop
monopoly to fuel their "war of destruction".
>
>That is, in fact, extremely relevant, you see. If they aren't obliged
>to lower their prices, then this must mean they have no competitive
>pressures. Lack of competition is monopoly; monopoly is illegal.
Before you start with "having a monopoly is not illegal" remember
that just as "monopoly" does not mean 100% "monopoly power" cannot
be shown to exist without it being used.
Use of "monopoly power" is what the Sherman Act made illegal so
while having a monopoly might theoretically be OK using it in any
way, even lowering prices(called dumping when foreigners do it),
would be anti competitive and therefore illegal.
>
>Therefore, it is not senseless railing against cold hard business
>reality when one complains, specifically, about Microsoft's pricing. It
>is recognition that their prices are, objectively and truthfully, even
>legally, "too high". Monopolies are bad things simply because they
>aren't obliged to lower prices just because efficiency of production
>enables them to do so while maintaining adequate profit levels.
Not lowering prices when efficiencies enable it is called
"profiteering" and was outlawed long before the Sherman Act.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 03:50:08 GMT
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>aaron wrote:
>> Anonymous wrote:
>> >
>> > aaron wrote:
>> > > Anonymous wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > aaron wrote:
>> > > > > If you were to follow around one IQ-100 person all day, you would
>> > > > > be appalled by the vast number of incredibly stupid things they do
>> > > > > in the course of a day, and how many completely fucking obvious
>> > > > > connections they miss, how many winning opportunities they pass
>> > > > > up (because they either don't understand them, or they fail to
>> > > > > even recognize that the opportunity exists in the first place).
>> > > >
>> > > > now you know why i usually don't read your messages
>> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> > > >
>> > > > p.s. windows is a pretty cool operating system
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Only in comparison to DOS.
>> > >
>> > > Compared to anything else, Windows is comparable to a Formula-1 body
>> > > slapped on top of a Ford Pinto with a sand-injection oil system
>> > > and water-contaminated brake-lines.
>> >
>> > amiga: dead
>> > beos: fringe
>> > mac: fringe
>> > os2: dead
>> > next: dead
>> > unix: user hostile
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Microsoft propaganda.
>
>no, personal experience.
>a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
>i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
>u can't touch this
Configuring Windows is my forte. I have been installing/reinstalling
Windows Millennium for the last three days. I expect to have a well
done installation within a week. I guess my idea of "installation" is
different than most folks. Mine has to look good and be as efficient
as possible (making Windows more nearly efficient is a Herculean
task). Being done in ten minutes is unbelievable.
LShaping
>
>> Unix has had fully functional GUI's since the mid 1980's.
>
>xwindows?
>nerdo please...
>
>> Not only that, but Unix is very very very consistant; in contrast, DOS and Windows
>> both have lots of arbitrary rules with even more exceptions.
>
>why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>more even than death
>- bertrand russell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:07:03 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:44:15 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Regardless, if a serviceman has a 10-year history of being in excellant
>physical condition, such that his high muscle mass fucks up his
>stats on the height-weight scales, they should just designate the
>serviceman "extremely physically fit" and eliminate the bodyfat
>percentage calculation if he's passed it within the last 11 months.
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
I agree. It would be simple to do it along the lines of a
room/workspace inspection, where sometimes if a grade of "outstanding"
is awarded on an inspection, that room or workspace may be exempt from
the next inspection.
Scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:14:01 GMT
On 11 Mar 2001 02:45:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>The Ghost In The Machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: Considering the amount of refrigerant I would think would be required
>: (at most, a few cups), it's a small price to pay. As far as the
>: denaturants, I don't know what they are, but presumably those would
>: be the items leaving deposits on a board should there be a leak.
>
>At most, the Everclear coolant shouldn't cost more than $20. Note that in some
>areas Everclear is not available due to its use in crack manufacture. In
>Chicago, you can't get Everclear but you can in the suburbs.
>
Another interesting use for Everclear--As you may know, dogs like the
taste of automobile antifreeze, and will drink it, given the chance.
Antifreeze (the ethylene glycol, to be more specific) does horrible
damage to the dog's liver in a very short amount of time. It was
discovered that the same bonding sites in the liver that absorb
ethylene glycol also absorb regular ethyl alcohol (of which Everclear
is a particularly pure example). So, an efficient and effective
treatment for antifreeze ingestion is to set the dog up on an IV drip
of Everclear, and pretty much keep the dog drunk out of its mind for a
few hours. This will keep the liver busy absorbing the ethyl alcohol,
and the ethylene glycol will pass out of the dog's system without
being absorbed by the liver. Funny to watch, too!
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:22:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anonymous wrote:
>> > unix: user hostile
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Microsoft propaganda.
>
It's absolutely true that Microsoft is spreading propaganda
about Linux being user unfreindly and incapable of doing
business functions.
It's also equally clear that Linux is running 50% of the WWW
as well as being the core engine on every BW Supercomputer cluster
in the world. Every new record being broken these days is being
established with a Linux super cluster.
>no, personal experience.
>a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
>i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
>u can't touch this
>
Linux not only IS doing it, it's actually beating Windows
on the desktop. W2k professional or ME appears like a pancake
peice of low performance shit when you compare it to a modern
Gnome or KDE2.
And installation is just a brainless. Suse, Mandrake and Redhat
all have clueless boob installations for the Windows user.
>
>xwindows?
>nerdo please...
>
Xwindows has had such a powerful affect on Microsoft they
are trying to emulate it with their BRAND NEW XBOX product.
Now what the fuck are you going to say?
>> Not only that, but Unix is very very very consistant; in contrast, DOS and Windows
>> both have lots of arbitrary rules with even more exceptions.
>
>why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>more even than death
>- bertrand russell
>
They aren't Jones. This is a figment of your imagination.
I predict in another 5 years, Microsoft will finally come up to
the standards of today's Gnome or KDE2. It's going to take them
that damn long now that they are copying us.
This is an undeniable fact now that they've posted this was their
intention on THEIR web site.
If THEY AGREE they are copying Gnome and KDE2 functionality, then
surely you agree.
Why don't you run a real operating system and run Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:29:49 +1300
C# is Microsofts answer to Java. The reason why SUN had a spiff with
Microsoft, is because Microsoft wanted to enhance and extend java, aka screw
it so it can only work on windows. SUN had to step in, else, there would
have been a splinter in Java, resulting in various versions of Java being
incompatible with each other, much like the BSD debarcle.
Matthew Gardiner
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've looked into ms's C#... looks like the spitting image of java to me!
> Looks like trouble on the horizon. I wonder if Sun will sue them again??
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frederico S. =?iso-8859-1?q?Mu=F1oz?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 11 Mar 2001 04:34:40 +0000
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis) writes:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:48:05 GMT, Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> >True, from a lawyers perspective. Linux has (almost) all of the POSIX API's
> >and is closer to most mainstream Unix varient (such as Solaris) than BSD is,
> >from a SysAdmin perspective.
> >
> >This is mainly to do with the startup sequences, and how starting additional
> >software at boot time is handled.
>
> "Linux" does not have SysV inits. Some Linux distros do. I haven't
> looked at Slackware in a long time, but it used to be a BSDish system
> with a Linux kernel and a GNU userland.
Still is, AFAIK; it's being distributed nowadays by Walnut Creek
CDROM, and I think it even appears as an option in several BSD vendors
(I remeber one that ended with 'And if it's Linux that you want...').
To my best knowledge it still has BSD style init.
>
> RedHat feels more AT&Tish, as does Debian. However, there are still
> significant BSDisms in Linux. Even Solaris has some BSDisms by heritage.
>
Debian used to use BSD style IIRC, but now it's all SysV; just about
every GNU/Linux distro uses SysV.
But of course, you are correct: it does not depend on the kernel, one
could probably invent a new startup sequence on topof Linux... the GNU
system wouldn't mind, and neither would the kernel.
GNU tools usually mimic the BSD tools and not their SysV counterparts
though... although generally they tend to support both styles, that's
probably why they have 5e2 options :) From the GNU COding Standards:
'With occasional exceptions, utility programs and libraries for GNU
should be upward compatible with those in Berkeley Unix, and upward
compatible with Standard C if Standard C specifies their behavior, and
upward compatible with POSIX if POSIX specifies their behavior.'
Best Regards,
fsm
- --
Frederico S. Mu�oz GNU http://www.gnu.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org
http://sdf.lonestar.org - SDF Public Access Unix Systems
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iEYEARECAAYFAjqrAFEACgkQSid3DhZal0JM1QCfRRe+BZjcYukPAbleLCdBM4jN
ucwAn0IyH9zFcZCP5oHg5UwO0tMcSoof
=Cl9G
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:44:56 -0700
LShaping wrote:
>
>
> Right. That gets to my point. Some of us want to get things done and
> do not have the time to spend on details. Low level languages are
> more detailed and take a lot of writing to produce better results, if
> you have the time. And to the Linux lunatics. There is such a thing
> which grownups use, called "tools". Some of you who oppose Microsoft
> seem to be stuck in a simplistic sandbox with your Linux bucket and
> scoop, not being able to do anything more than a million simple
> operations. I imagine that is one reason why you have failed. If a
> programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of modern
> computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would love to
> have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but command line
> stuff is for the birds.
>
This bothers me. It assumes that one can ignore the basic details of
the underlying machine and still write reliable, efficient code. It
appears as though you are saying that programmers should view the
interfaces provided by 'tools' as happy worlds in which they can write
'modern' programs with no concern for the hardware price paid for their
lack of attention to 'details'.
This almost sounds like an MS mantra, "Forget details, ship the code."
Followed shortly thereafter by, "We'll catch the bugs in a Service
Pack."
You can drag and drop an entire enterprise together, I suppose, but I'd
hate to be the one to have to go in and figure out why the Sales
Projection batch doesn't run when Sam forgets to take the floppy disk
out of his 'A' drive or someone in Marketing left the monthly report
open in Word.
MjM
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:41:01 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <98e50i$l3f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Exactly because of those features. Most (all?) unixes ship with those.
> >
> > Still waiting for these Solaris features that Linux doesn't have.
>
> Most of them are in the server arena, btw.
> Scalability is one, Linux, even 2.4, just can't compete with it.
perhaps solaris is better suited to 64 cpu smp ultrasparcs, but you
were touting solaris for the pc. (now, mind you, linux can do 64 way
smp on 64-bit hardware like ultrasparc, but solaris may be better.)
however, on the pc, linux performs on old i386, single cpu machines
through 4-way ppro boxen to dual pentium-iii, quad xeon.
> Stability is another, although arguable.
> Security, I really like to have ACLs.
franz allegro common lisp is available for x86 linux.
> Support, YMMV, but I like Sun's support better than most of what Linux has
> to offer.
support is available for both. but sun may be better for you.
however, since i'm a simple luser downloading something for free, i
prefer linux support.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:51:14 +1300
I been using UNIX for 10 years, 5 of which have been in the Linux arena, and
I have seen how the installation process has become easier. Now, you've
heard the urban myth that Linux/UNIX is hard to install, which is a load of
crock. My very first copy of Linux was Redhat Linux 5.2, and as long as you
follow the instructions on the screen and documentation, your installation
experience should be relitively straight forward. The problem occurs when
idiots try to install UNIX/Linux under the assumption that it is exactly
like Microsoft Windows, which is totally incorrect. People have problems
when they think they know more than what they really do. A while back, in
the Linux Journal there was a quite a good column addressing the issue of
users making them self appointed computer gurus on the basis that they know
how to point and click using Windows, yet, have a nasty shock when they move
to Linux/UNIX or any other OS that requires a level of knowledge beyond
point and click. People may say, "why should they need to learn how to use
a computer to complete a basic task", my response is that , if all you were
to use a computer for is to write a letter to Aunt Perl, and send some
email, you shouldn't really concern yourself with the OS, hence, the excuse
used ("why should they need to learn how to use a computer to complete a
basic task") is a cop-out for users who aren't willing to use a bit of
grey-matter, and learn the new system. Also, users face problems because
they do check out what they are going to embark into, its a bit like a
person taking up a sport and not doing any theory on how to play the game,
how do you expect to play the game when you have no knowledge to allow you
to do it? and OS's/Software are the same situation. In understand that
people may not have the time, however, look at your time table, howmany
hours is dedicated to watching the idiot box? probably quite a few.
Instead, read a book and teach your-self, once you get up to speed, (in
around 4-6 weeks), in that, knowing the in's and out's of your new OS, you
will find that you will be able to complete tasks more efficiently on your
new OS, thus giving more time to do what you want to do, hence, learning,
and reading do pay off in the end.
Matthew Gardiner
<snype useless crap>
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:58:44 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
>
> :> score better than someone with the same intelligence who just hasn't
> :> read as much. The degenerate example of this would be some isolated
> :> kid who's parents never put him in school and never taught him how
> :> to read. He might be highly intelligent but still lacking the chance
> :> to pick up language skills.
>
> : This is similar to arguing that one's genetic potential for
> : musculature doesn't exist, because you can always find some
> : child of well-muscled parents who is weak and scrawny after
> : years of being malnurished while locked in a closet without
> : exercise.
>
> The difference is that you recognize that genetics does not
> *guarantee* musculature, yet you pretend IQ tests are a
> guaranteed measure of intelligence.
Wrong.
IQ tests are a measure of intelligence in the same weigh as
scales test weight.
IQ test do NOT test genetic potential, merely that which exists.
> There is a high corellation,
> but to assume that everyone who scores low on IQ is not intelligent
> is incorrect.
Name one intelligent person who routinely gets test scores which
correlate to a 75 IQ.
Be precise. I want a specific name.
>
> : Exceptions do not make the rule, and in most cases, the reasons
> : that the exceptions *are* exceptions are readily apparent to
> : even the most casual of observers.
>
> Will you admit that exceptions exist and therefore the IQ tests
Are you willing to admit that exceptions do not make the rule?
> are NOT a good measure of inteligence? Do that and I stop
> arguing about this. You can argue correlations all you want.
> Showing correlations is insufficient to prove your point.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:04:02 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
>
> :> *better* solution in the long run. He was trying to counter
> :> your notion that intelligent == fast. The problem with his
> :> approach is that Karl's solution was *also* faster, since he
> :> had his answer first.
>
> : At this point, I can only say that you have TOTALLY
> : misunderstood the story of Gauss.
>
> That's funny since my understanding of it matches what you
> just posted. Read the last sentence in my above quoted
> paragraph again. Note that I SAID Karl had his answer first.
You implied that Karl's solution somehow made a case for the
superior answers by stupid people.
The unspoken assumption, then, is that Karl was a stupid child,
or else why else did you bring up this case of a brilliant solution
as an example of an anamoly, representative of a stupid child
developing a superior solution.
Explain fully...it will amuse me.
> My point was that you didn't understand how Scott was trying
> to use the story in his argument. I'm not disagreeing with
> you on what the story is, nor am I agreeing with what Scott
> said.
I understand fully. The premise was that it is routine for stupid
people to come up with superior solutions...and trotted out an
example of a BRILLIANT person coming up with a superior solution.
Kind of deflates the whole egalitarian mythology of intelligence.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:05:31 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 21:25:33 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Read his post. He was implying just the opposite. That even
> >> though he took *longer* to figure out what to do, his was a
> >
> >No, he did NOT take longer to figure it out.
>
> >At this point, I can only say that you have TOTALLY
> >misunderstood the story of Gauss.
>
> Jeez, I thought I told the Gauss story pretty well. If you go back to
> my original post, I acknowledged that Gauss' solution probably didn't
> take as long as his classmates' solution, but I also said that even if
> it HAD taken him longer, his would have still been the more
> intelligent, elegant solution, thus trying to refute statements from
> earlier posts that "solved is solved", or that the first solution is
> necessarily the best.
Then how does this fit into your argument for the existance of
stupid people who routinely come up with brilliant solutions?
>
> Scott Gardner
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
