Linux-Advocacy Digest #287, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:21 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001
[...]
>> As a matter of fact, its my theory that all definitions are naturally
>> recursive. But I'm afraid what you're pointing out isn't recursion.
>
>How would you call it ? <== Candid question here.
Well, ultimately any question "X is Z" can be epistemologically whittled
down to "X is X". Love is "that which we call what is called love".
Justice is "that which we call what it is which is called justice".
While this might seem merely a trick of those "wily philosophers", the
concept of "concept" underlies all language, and thus thought itself,
and so this is a universal truth. What is "Usenet"? What is "irony"?
What is "accurate" or "moderate"?
Simply that which we call those things, and nothing more.
>> >net kook: noun. Someone calling T Max Devlin a net kook.
>>
>> No, you forget, I'm relying on somebody *else's* definition of a net
>> kook. Take a consensus. If there are more unreasonable people in the
>> world than reasonable, I'm fucked anyway, so I'll merely let consensus
>> decide.
>
>But you are starting by assuming that you are reasonable.
No, I started out assuming I am reasonable. I have no choice but to do
so.
[...]
>> And perhaps you are smart enough to see that my inability or lack of
>> desire to explain your pathetic rhetoric (vis a vis, "unsubstantiated
>> claims laced with deprecation and creative naming of the object..."
>> yada, yada, yada") and its relationship to Mr. Franklin's sentiments is
>> not relevant to your sputtering. You're again left feeling clueless,
>> and will no doubt again accuse me of my "wily tricks".
>
>You said it, not me. All I say that I found that considering how you debate
>and your sig, there was irony. You lamented that on usenet there weren't
>enough smart person to understand that quote, so I'm asking what it indeed
>does mean, and you go I won't tell you.
No I lamented that there appeared to be *no people smart enough* to
understand the quote. Which is not very surprising, considering how
imprecise everyone seems to be about such things.
You asked "what does posting unsubstantiated claims...", blah, blah,
blah; you didn't ask me to explain what it means.
Would you like me to explain what it means? Do you think I have not
done so already?
>Talk aboyt no sharing what you know.
>No wonder i'm left clueless.
Think harder. You're a lot closer than you believe.
[...]
>> >It's not my sig that reads:
>> >
>> >" *** The best way to convince another is
>> > to state your case moderately and
>> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***"
>> >
>> >and who then complain when someone points out at the irony of it.
>>
>> You have it backwards. You were the one complaining, and I'm the one
>> pointing out the irony of that.
>
>No Max I pointed the irony, you complained that people didn't get the
>Franklin's quote.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22smart+enough%22+author:T.+author:Max+a
>uthor:Devlin&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=relevance&as_drrb=between&as_qdr=&as
>_mind=15&as_minm=3&as_miny=2001&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=4&as_maxy=2001&rnum=2&seld
>=907625068&ic=1&filter=0
>
>Sorry for the messed up URL.
Why didn't you just quote it, then?
You complained, though you tried to turn your complaint to ridicule by
making your complaint that "it is ironic" that I use the sig, as if to
thereby "prove" that my statements aren't stated accurately or
moderately (or at least indicate you disagreed with calling them that).
I pointed out it is ironic that you complain, in the form of a question.
Apparently you, at least, are still not bright enough to understand
where the irony is in Mr. Franklin's words and my use of them as a sig.
Perhaps this time you will at least try. Its obvious (or should be)
that you're not going to get anywhere trying amateurish ridicule.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:24 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >Beep, wrong answer. Those weren't my comments. Try again next time.
>>
>> Well, that's what happens when you so ineptly <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>.
>
>You're right. Then again, I incorrectly assumed that you had a threaded
>newsreader and that you could follow that the post I responded too, was in
>response to a Roger's post, where, anyway you showed disregard for your
>attribution.
No, your assumptions were correct. The only place your logic failed you
is in assuming that I care whether those words were posted by you or an
anonymous troller. As I've pointed out on several occasions, and you've
agreed with on at least one, it really doesn't matter, in this context.
>But since you apparently wore yourself thin by responding to many, many
>post, those kind of things may happen.
If you weren't snipping so badly, it wouldn't happen, regardless.
[...]
>> >> Oh, yes, I know:
>> >
>> >Good, we're making progress.
>>
>> Timing, timing....
>>
>> [Translation: Paul's a dishonest little shit who just played a trick on
>> the reader.]
>
>You shouldn't throw insults around, it doesn't make your point anymore
>cogent, and reflects badly on your character.
You shouldn't throw comments into the middle of a sentence for trolling
points; it makes you a dishonest little shit. Believe me, I'm more than
willing to let anyone consider for themselves whether that statement is
accurate or moderate. Or, as I myself describe it, accurate,
consistent, and practical.
>> >> /Because Paul Says So!/
>> >
>> >Not at all. Because you exhibit a callous disregard towards getting your
>> >attributions straight when debating.
>>
>> I'm not the one that snipped the attributions, hambone.
>
>But you could try cutting down the name calling.
You could try making it less necessary. If it turns out I'm too much of
a prick for you to talk to, that is your clue that you are too much of a
prick to talk to.
>> ><QUOTE>
>> >Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
>> ></QUOTE>
>>
>> Way to show context, dude. Cute. Ben would have been proud.
>
>Now, you are going to pretend that when Roger told you that he wasn't the
>one you incorrectly attributed some stuff you didn't say this ? You want a
>Deja URL ?
Did you not read the quote, or did you not *understand* the quote?
[...]
>> No "ditto". Do you have model numbers? Or even a more explicit
>
>??? I could swear I see one above.
Is that the only model number that exhibits such behavior? And you
still have no explanation for why? It seems your theory is rather well
disproved, then, or at least so watered down as to be useless.
>> description of the hardware issues these guys were discussing? Was it
>
>Do you have a more explicit description of those ROM parts.
I never said I had any descriptions of these things. They are not
necessary to explain my theory. They are necessary to explain yours.
The good William of Ockham would suggest that this proves your theory
false, already, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>> merely idle chatter? What parts were involved? Were they a bunch of
>> flakes likewise defending a monopoly? You're leaving us in the dark
>
>Why do you feel such need to call people names ? Let your argument show them
>for what they are ? Do you see people everywhere defending monopolies ?
>There are people that just don't care, believe it or not.
Foolishness makes me angry. I will not be apologizing for that. Nor
for the unfortunate fact that I am left having to rely on my own
definition of foolishness in making such determinations.
>> here, suspecting that you have nothing but an argument from ignorance,
>> and you're trying to milk it as long as you can.
>
>Nah. I let drop that the argument with you long ago. I just pulled the
>"model numbers" to see how you would react and made no mysteru of it.
Guffaw.
[...]
>> All I'm asking for is a reasonable doubt. If you can't provide one,
>
>I'll give it to you. Are you willing to the same for this little dipshit ?
>:)
The smiley turns what should be a straight-forward insult into a wining
little passive-aggressive bit of trollery. So I must immediately
suspect that you are not, as you claim, capable of providing any
reasonable doubt. Still, I will again give you the benefit of the
doubt. Explain away.
>> then I'm afraid I must presume I'm correct. We'll leave whether anyone
>> else reading my words besides you thinks this is also correct entirely
>> up to them. So now we're left with you, and an argument from ignorance.
>
>I don't have an argument here with you Max, don't sweat it.
Make up your mind.
>> >> >Don't sweat it by posting contrived handwaving.
>> >>
>> >> Is that what that was? :-)
>> >
>> >Mirror of your debating tactics. So Max, how do you like 'em ?
>>
>> You're pretending, again.
>
>No. Those where the exact same questions you asked me when we were
>discussing floppies, Windows and multitasking.
And you failed to understand any form of context, I see. So I'll chalk
it up to you being passive-aggressive, again.
[...]
>> Do you interrupt people in the middle of their sentence in real life,
>
>Sometimes. You never, ever do it ? Then again, you're not talking, it's a
>posted message and I'm responding right below the part I'm adressing. Sorry
>to mess up your sense of reality. Do you throw insult around like that in
>real life ?
Guffaw.
Save your comments to the end of the paragraph, or at least make some
effort to keep the quotes comprehensible, or it is your sense of reality
which is called into question, not mine.
>> too? No, I do not "get that", as in I do not think that is explicitly
>> what he meant. I said that it was perhaps true, and we can't rule it
>> out, AFAIK, so, yes, perhaps it was his meaning. But I was saying, "I
>> doubt he was saying 'one must always be
>
>Well, in order to win an argument, I beliave that what he wrote was true.
It took me a few seconds after reading that to realize you were equating
"win an argument" with "convince another". There honestly seems to be
something wrong with that equation, though I can certainly understand
the relationship. Perhaps if your response was more coherent (without
being all spread out and intermingled rather randomly with my own
words), I'd have understood and agreed with it. Please try again, if
you want.
[...]
>> You can't lose an argument to someone who is boorish. Its like having a
>> duel but only one guy has a gun.
>
>It's a battle of wits, not a life and death physical struggle, the more
>boorish the opponent, the more you score points.
You're getting there. Keep going with that. You'll figure it out.
>> >When people resort to
>> >insults, it generally means that they are out of arguments. Hard to
>convince
>> >someone that you just insulted IMO.
>>
>> You might notice that this is not a private exchange, so perhaps I'm not
>> trying to convince you at all, and believe that those who I am trying to
>> convince will find my arguments reasonable, and my insults moderate.
>
>I know that you aren't trying to convince me. Moderate insults !? :D You
>forgot and accurate. :)
That goes without saying. ;-)
>> >Your mileage will undoubtedly vary. :)
>>
>> Why does anyone bother to post that?
>
>Why does anyone bother to post just the above ? :)
Is that meant to answer my question, or to avoid answering my question?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:25 GMT
Said Gunner� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:45:26
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>Tight regulation of the businesses,undercover agents.
>>>>
>>>Oh..so then Mathew..you are advocating a Police State then?
>>
>>In a casino? Hell yes! When you pay for a hooker, you should get your
>>money's worth, and when you lose money gambling, you want to be sure
>>your cluelessness doesn't end up supporting the mob. Unless you're not
>>thinking very hard.
>
>I was just questioning your evident mindset carried out to the logical
>conclusion, based on many of your posts. You seem quite in love with
>the State as the end all and be all.
Whoops, sorry. My fault, I jumped into the middle of a conversation.
I'm not Mathew.
However, I don't see why regulation of gambling casinos leads to the
"logical conclusion" of an over-all Police State, so I don't believe
your comment is true.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:26 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : After all, property is the only human right which matters, eh? Funny
>> : how they left it out of the Constitution, substituting "pursuit of
>> : happiness" for the right to property.
>>
>> Hint: check out the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>> You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence. It however is
>> not the law; the Constitution is.
>>
>
>Actually, the Supreme Court WILL entertain legal theories based upon
>the Declaration of Independance....as long as it weaves into a rational
>interpretation of the Constitution. So also, legal theories based upon
>arguments documented in The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.
It seems a bit ironic that you'd be the one to point that out, in this
context, Aaron. Do you know if the Federalist Papers or any other
sources give some clear indication on why the Declaration of
Independence substitutes 'pursuit of happiness' for 'property', in the
enumeration of Lockean rights?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:28 GMT
Said Beth in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:05:20 +0100;
[...]
>You all argue with your blind predjuices showing and even if you could prove
>beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right then NO-ONE would listen
>anyway because you're bigoted and biased and spouting other people's empty
>propoganda...
>
>Think for yourselves.
But when we do that, we get in arguments with others who think for
themselves and come up with different results, leaving us back with what
you insist is "blind prejudices". I'm sorry, I just can't agree with
your fatalistic view of political philosophy.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:29 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
[...]
>Wrong. Doing nothing and letting your country be stolen from you
>by corrupt politicians who operate by taxing the workers into poverty,
>and then pretending to be "GENEROUS" by giving them their own money
>back is a loss.
Let me ask you something, Aaron, on a purely cerebral level, if
possible. What makes it "your" country? I know you can identify it,
and identify with it, because it is the one you are in, the one you were
born in, the one you most agree with idealistically (no telling, of
course, how related those three things might be.) But I don't think
that's the case. I think you somehow think that it is "your" country,
not because you agree with its ideals, but because it agrees with yours.
There is an expectation, I think, of *control* in your beliefs. It is
your country because you are the one who determines that it is a) your
country, and b) coincident with your ideals.
This isn't a subtle flame or jest; I'm trying to explore some
philosophical musings based on my readings, and I need someone's
perspective other than my own. Since the best I can do is get my own
perception of someone else's perception, I'm looking for answers
anywhere I can get them.
So tell me, Aaron, to the best of your knowledge, why is it "your"
country?
>Taking your country BACK is not a loss...it is a gain. Not only does
>it solve the immediate problem, but it also puts future generations
>of power-hungry cretins on notice.
>
>Have you noticed that of the former Warsaw Pact countries, Romania
>is MUCH freer than all of her neighbors?
>
>Could be because that theiving Caucescou and equallly dispicable bitch
>of a wife were both stood up against the wall and cut down on live
>TV, would it?
>
>No, of course not.
>
>There is only one punishment which is proper for those who seek to
>enslave others...and that's it.
That could well be; there is certainly a visceral truth embodied in your
statement. But there's the small matter of having to buy into your
personal beliefs (and that's all they are, regardless of how many
philosophers *you* might feel agree) about what constitutes "enslaving
others".
[...]
>> Let's be constructive...listen to the "opposition", even if you think they
>> are totally wrong...as I'm sure your experience (and the experience of
>> countless billions before you) shows, shouting loudly gets everyone nowhere
>> fast...the second someone utters "you're wrong" then it turns into a brawl
>> and nothing more...
>
>There is nothing more reprehensible than bargaining with people who are
>trying to enslave you. Not unless the subject of the negotiations is
>what they will do, for the people, to be let off with life in prison
>as opposed to the execution they deserve.
You're not doing any bargaining, Aaron. Your monkey-brain may not be
able to tell the difference between a Usenet assault on your integrity
and the actual threat of tyranny, but by insisting there is no debate,
you make clear that you're incapable of participating in the debate, and
nothing more.
>> Please, you're all better than this...show it...and, guess what, making an
>> argument by example actually has the power to change people's
>> opinions...shouting "you are a commie asshole" NEVER EVER works...after all,
>> think about it for two seconds, if they are a "commie" then being called a
>> "commie" is a great compliment NOT an insult...
>
>You are truly NUTS, Beth. Have you EVER been to a communist country?
>
>EVERYBODY wants to leave those places.
>
>Do you know why?
They're very badly run, apparently.
>> You all argue with your blind predjuices showing and even if you could prove
>> beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right then NO-ONE would listen
>> anyway because you're bigoted and biased and spouting other people's empty
>> propoganda...
>
>I am goddamned sick and tired of people who go around trampling on the
>Constitution rights and freedoms of the workers of this country and then
>have the gall to parade around like they're some sort of liberators.
That would be you, Aaron, more than anyone else I've ever heard speak on
the subject who does not at least *recognize* that they are fascist.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:31:30 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Ok, troll boy, I'll give you have a chance here.
>>
>> : What major Constitutional violations are currently being perpetrated?
>>
>> Read the Constitution, and you'll be able to answer that for yourself.
>>
>> I've alluded to some of them in other posts on this thread, but a
>> detailed listing would be far beyond the scope of a USENET posting.
>> And others already have chronicled them in far more detail than I
>> could hope to.
>>
>> : How do we currently have an "oligarchy".
>>
>> It is very obvious if you follow the money.
>>
>> A handful of wealthy individuals, families, and institutions control
>> the media, the government, most large businesses, most of the supposed
>> "grassroots" movements (on BOTH sides), both major parties,
>> "education," and everything else that matters.
>>
>> The left clearly sees the corporate side of this oligarchy; the right
>> clearly sees the government and union side. Both are correct. But
>> they don't realize that for the most part it is the same folks in
>> charge of all of these.
>>
>
>Translation:
>
>The Democrats are right, the Republicans ARE a bunch of Fascists AND
>the Republicans are right, the Democrats ARE a bunch of Communists.
>
>The two facts are NOT mutually exclusive.
Neither are:
Republicans and Democrats ARE both wrong AND
Aaron Kulkis IS a paranoid schizophrenic.
[...]
>Because of their incessant propaganda.
>
>I like how a Federal judge threw out a Colorado law that came by way of
>ballot referendum on the grounds that it didn't pass the Constitution's
>mandate that the US guarantees that EACH STATE shall be a republic.
>
>Heheheheh
Is it only private delusion that a Federal judge as stated all
referendums are unconstitutional, or do you have some more believable
authority to cite?
>In fact, it was this very case which alerted me to the fact that, at the
>state and federal level, Democracy is illegal in the United States.
No, lack of republicanism (little R, just like the democracy you speak
of is little D) makes referendums unconstitutional. I don't see
anything in what you've posted so far to even *hint* that "democracy is
illegal". Nor could such a case be proven, given that the republican
government mandated by the Constitution requires democratic election of
representatives.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:32:03 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Just for fun, can we skip the word games on democracy and republic? The
>> word are normally used interchangeably when discussing our political system.
>
>Only by Fools, and Propagandists.
>
>Which are you, Perko?
Guffaw, Aaron. Fucking guffaw. You are embarrassing yourself, and
every ideal you pretend to stand for.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:37:04 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> Aaron is not advocating that we round up everyone - just those who are
> :> the most blatantly and obviously guilty. And, so long as these folks
> :> get an *exceedingly* fair trial, and as long as their sentences are
> :> somewhat commensurate with their crimes, I am in total agreement with
> :> him.
>
> : http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/calvinthedog?d&.flabel=fld4&.src=ph
>
> : Here I am guy. Please send me photos to the FBI, ok? I would just
> : love to be on a most-wanted list! And I haven't been on trial in 21
> : years! I miss the courtroom, honest!
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see any evidence of you being a
> significant threat to the life, liberty or property of anyone right
> now.
>
> If you were to act on your views, that would be a different story.
I think he can already be put away for subversion.
>
> Joe
--
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
******************************
