Linux-Advocacy Digest #156, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. ("billh")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. ("billh")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("billh")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. ("billh")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Donn Miller)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
Re: XWindows loading on startup ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: KuKuNut, USA/USAF Doctrine for Airlift Operations? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
us.military.army,alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,soc.ment,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:10:57 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> http://www.google.com/search?q=strategic+C-130
There are only two .mil sites in the search.
One site's (USAF) first sentence states, "The C-130 Hercules primarily
performs the tactical portion of the airlift mission." LOL!!!
The other site (USN) states, "The Hercules probably is the most versatile
tactical transport aircraft ever built." and "The Hercules, initially
designed to specifications laid down by the USAF Tactical Air Command...".
The word "strategic" isn't even on the site. It only appears in Google and
then that is "strategic communications". We're talking airlift here,
wannabe.
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm
Not a .mil address, but it dams you anyway. This site list these missions
of the C130: Tactical Airlift ,Aerial Tanker, Command & Control, Maritime
Patrol, Special Operations, Search & Rescue, Humanitarian Relief, Staff/VIP
Transport, Reconnaissance, Airborne Hospital. Arctic & Anarctic Support,
Drone Control, Electronic Warfare, Space & Missile Operations, Test &
Evaluation, Weather Reconnaissance, and Gunship.
Sadly for you the first mission listed is "tactical airlift". "Strategic
airlift" isn't even mentioned. You're not real bright to include this site
either. LOL!!!
> http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_05.htm
Foreign. You made your claim about the C130 regarding the USAF.
> http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_02.htm
Foreign. You made your claim about the C130 regarding the USAF.
> http://www.sunnersberg.com/c1_c3_hercules.htm
Foreign. You made your claim about the C130 regarding the USAF.
> http://www.rin.org.uk/env/personnel.html
Foreign. You made your claim about the C130 regarding the USAF.
> http://british-forces.com/cig/aircraft/c-130.html
Foreign. You made your claim about the C130 regarding the USAF.
> Aircraft C-130 Hercules Role Strategic Reconaissance
So, you don't know the difference between airlift and reconnaissance either.
LOL!!!
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd77148e.html
Foreign. You made your claim about the C130 regarding the USAF.
> http://news.lmasc.com/article.htm?article_id=57
> Hmmmmmmm, even Lockheed Martin agrees with Specialist Kulkis
Show us where the USAF uses the C130J and C130J-30 for strategic airlift.
> http://www.monmouth.army.mil/monmessg/newmonmsg/mar102000/10plane.htm
Written by a civilian at CECOM as a test bed. Not quite Kulkis.
> http://www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm
The First sentence of this site states, "The C-130 is a four-engine
turboprop, high-wing aircraft used mainly as a tactical intra-theater
transport." Learn to read. The word "strategic airlift", and "strategic
transport" are only used in conjunction with the C141, C5, C17, and CRAF.
Again. You are damned by your own post.
KuKuNut. provide a USAF site that states the C130 is a strategic airlift
asset. That's the claim you made. LOL!!!
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:15:01 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billh wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > That's your problem, Kulkis, every thing you post about the military
is
> > "off
> > > > the cuff". It's why you are mostly wrong. Your classics of "class
2
> > food",
> > >
> > > I never claimed such. Food is class I.
> >
> > Don't you ever stop lying? This is really pathetic, even for you,
wannabe.
> > I refer all her to: Your post (news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...)
from 27
> > Apr 2001 in the
> > thread, "Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)" proves you a liar. I
repost
> > it below:
>
> NOBODY but Bill Hudson else can find this message on their servers.
>
> Interesting...verrrrrrrry interesting.
Funny that you're the one incorrectly using roman numerals for classes of
supply. Interesting...verrrrrrrry interesting. LOL!!!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:16:14 -0400
On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>> It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
>> craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>> irritating.
> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
> exist in any way.
For the nth time, this is false. The program may not be *functional*,
but you can definitely write such a program. It might even be useful,
as in an educational exercise. Not only can this be done, but the work
is copyrighted and if and when a library is implemented to the API
spec, the original code is not derivative of the library.
Ooops.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 3 May 2001 16:16:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 01 May 2001 19:49:49 -0400, Scott Nolan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Croughton wrote:
>
>> >Aaron R. Kulkis
>> >Unix Systems Engineer
>> >DNRC Minister of all I survey
>> >ICQ # 3056642
>>
>> What is all the stuff that follows this? It's way out of line for a
>> sig, 49 line sigs are not good netiquette anywhere.
>
>Agreed, though I had fun reading it...
So did I - once. That's the trouble with fixed .sigs, they are good
once or twice but after several messages with exactly the same text they
get distinctly boring...
>Scott,
> who thinks vi is easier than simpletext, jot, vueedit, and notepad;
So do I.
>But then, he's probably insane from too many <insert diety of choice
>here> Windoze reboots. :-)
Ah. I've just been using vi for the last 25plus years, that proves I'm
insane <g>...
Chris C
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:16:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
Kulkis, the first sign we know that you know you are beat is when you
reapeted repost the same post. It's especialy funny when that post is
idiotic.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:18:49 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > You're a wannabe and everybody knows it..
>
> In other words, you admit that you made the whole thing up.
No, you often prove, without anyone's help, yourself to be the true wannabe
that you are. Requires absolutely no action on my part, KuKuNut.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:22:07 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
jtnews wrote:
>
> On CNBC this morning I heard that they're
> making opening more of Windows source code
> due to pressure from the open source model
> of Linux.
But then, how much of that code is actually Microsoft's, and how much is
licensed to third-party developers? This will restrict how much they
can open up. Also, who will be the recipient of this opening of the
code? It seems obvious to me that other companies who rely on MS
software will be the recipient of this code, and even then, only under a
strict licensing agreement. We open source people will never see any of
the code. I really don't care anyways, because the software I'm using
now is worlds better IMO, and it suits my needs. I just don't like much
of the design and cultural philosophies behind Windows. I like unix,
and have like unix for almost 8 years now. This is why my OSes of
choice are FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris. It's not really a situation
where, oh, I hate Bill Gates and MS, so I'll just run Linux. Rather, I
use unix systems religiously, love the philosophy and the whole cultural
and religious aspect of unix. This in turn causes me to hate Billy G
and MS; so the cause and effect are reversed from what many Winvocates
think.
> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
> why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
Of course, you know they're going to think open source is bad, because
they're a producer of closed-source software, much like we think
closed-source software is bad.
I think many of the Wintrolls here don't really understand unix that
well. They can't understand why we just seem to think that, out of the
blue, a CLI system is better than a GUI system. It's not that reason at
all. Rather, most of us, I think, have been using unix for a number of
years, and Linux just happens to be a free implementation of unix, which
is why we're here.
Hey, why do wintrolls keep bitching about how tough unix is? If you
don't like it, don't run it. It's a free country. From what the
Wintrolls tell use, you'd think that someone put a gun to their heads
and forced them to use Linux. Also, I have to laugh at the wintrolls
who accuse us of having "so much hatred" of Bill G. and MS, like they
don't have hatred for unix and Linvocates.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:23:51 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 02 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >> >billh wrote:
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> [...]
> >> >> Why didn't you answer the question, "war-hero" wannabe? We'll take it this
> >> >> means that you don't know the answer and will continue to use the wannabe's
> >> >> "off-the cuff guide'.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's your problem, Kulkis, every thing you post about the military is "off
> >> >> the cuff". It's why you are mostly wrong. Your classics of "class 2 food",
> >> >
> >> >I never claimed such. Food is class I.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't that be "class 1"?
> >
> >No. US Army supply classes are in Roman numerals.
>
> Then why does Bill keep talking about "class 2....
>
> Oh, I get it.
>
> >>
> >> >> "strategic road marches",
> >> >
> >> >Germans conducted MANY during WW2.
> >>
> >> If I understood the official definitions that Bill has provided, these
> >> would be operational road marches, wouldn't they?
> >
> >Those who could be stuffed into trains and trucks rode.
> >Those who couldn't, were marched. Sometimes hundreds of miles.
>
> Still thinking the difference is a matter of distance, I guess.
>
> [...]
> >You are making the mistake of assuming that current USAF doctrine
> >is an absolute which MUST apply to everybody, at all times.
>
> No, you are making the mistake of assuming it is in error, at least
> rhetorically.
Regardless, various parts of the US Air Force consider the C-130 to
be a STRATEGIC lift platform
And here is on from the US 21st Air Force's own site
http://www.mcguire.af.mil/PA/news/21stfact.htm
The 21st AF strategic airlift force includes C-141 Starlifter,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C-130 Hercules, C-5 Galaxy, and the C-17 Globemaster III
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
aircraft, used to move cargo and passengers worldwide.
So, the 3-STAR GENERAL in charge of the 21st Air Force agrees
with Specialist Aaron Kulkis, and DISAGREES with Bill Hudson.
And of course, the 21st Air Force couldn't be designating
the C-130 as Strategic Lift without the OK of the commander
of the US Air Force ***AND*** the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
That means, then, that The Joint Chiefs of Staff agree with
Specialist Aaron Kulkis, and DISAGREE with Bill Hudson
(who is a disgrace to the officer corps because he is
incapable of both thought and reason).
[22]
And last, but not least, lets see what the people who are currently
developing our FUTURE doctrines say:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063787/html/134.html#pagetop
REDUCING THE LOGISTICS BURDEN FOR THE ARMY AFTER NEXT
[Page 134]
.....Depending on the geography and enemy situation in the
battle area, C-130 aricrat could be used for either operational
or strategic lift.
Looks like the even retired generals agree with Specialist Kulkis,
and, once again, DISAGREE with 2nd Lieutenant Bill Hudson.
>
> [...]
> >I understand that cargo planes with MUCH less cargo capacity,
> >and much shorter range SUCCESSFULLY carried out strategic supply
> >missions.
> >
> >Go do some research on the China-Burma-India theater of operations,
> >and the US aircraft that were "flying the 'Hump'", that is, performing
> >strategic supply OVER the Himalayas.
>
> You're taking yourself, and this discussion, far too seriously. Why on
> earth would I bother doing research on military trivia?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 3 May 2001 16:24:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:23:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Scott Nolan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 19:56:41
>>pookoopookoo wrote:
>>
>>> No matter how powerful it is, all it does is edit text. That's not what the
>>> average user wants. They want nice printed output, with reasonable color
>>> correction and WYSIWYG formatting. Maybe a few nice templates. Most
>>> important is a nice GUI and WYSIWIG.
>>
>>So name any word processor that truely gives us WYSIWYG...
>>
>>None do. All fail kerning 101. Only a few of the page layout programs can
>>correctly handle kerning.
>
>I think you confuse WYSIWYG and WYGIWYW (What You Get Is What You Want).
>Kerning only stops "true WYSIWYG" if it does it on screen but not on
>paper, or vice versa.
Which it does. None of the screen images are exactly the same as what's
printed on the paper, unless you have paper-sized screens with 600DPI,
they all have to mangle it so that it's "What You See Is Something Like
What You Get". This is particularly true with printers where the fonts
are built-in rather than downloaded, the character sizes and shapes are
never exact. Even with the best TrueType fonts there are differences in
the precise algorithms used.
Chris C
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XWindows loading on startup
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:25:42 +0200
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> Ah, it's as I thought. Always leave myself a backdoor. That's too bad
> about how debian has written the startup scripts. I prefer the
> /etc/inittab
> I still have to dig into Suns set up... but then again I like it as it
> is.
> Good instruction tho. :-)
>
Well, as a last remark before we hopelessly drift off-topic (what? in
cola? surely not?!), as long as you set up your PC as a single
workstation it makes a lot of sense; I really want to start all my
services, because I explicitly installed them for that purpose. There is
of course nothing that stops me from changing a few runlevels, and that's
when changing inittab starts making sense again. Debian does use it you
know, it's just that in normal operation it is not necessary to change
the default runlevel.
I can see the logic in why they chose to do it, and it is in fact easier
to use this way, unless you start fooling with new video drivers, but I
boot into single user for these kind of changes anyway.
Sun shouldn't be much different surely? It's all SysV init isn't it?
Aside from having predefined runlevels that is.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:28:01 -0400
On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
> [...]
>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>> not working as expected. Right?
>> Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
> Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
> is the whole point of many derivative movies.
No, a better analogy for derivative movies is a comparison with your
so-called thought process. If I want to program a billing system, one
of the many things that I will need is a way of comparing dates and
doing date math. I will use a library that does these things rather
than write one myself, because I don't have time to write one myself.
The API for that library promises me that it will work in a particular
manner, and as long as I use it in the prescribed manner, it will do
so.
This means that I don't know how -- and I don't CARE how -- the library
does its job, just that it does its job.
>> The API defines how the library must behave. If it doesn't, then
>> there is a bug and the library is not an implementation of the API.
> The API has metaphysical Truth, is that what you're saying?
No metaphysics involved. The API is a promise or a contract from the
supplier to the consumer of the library. "Pass me this information, and
I will work on it so that you get this result."
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:28:48 -0400
On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
> library".
Neither statement is necessarily true.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: KuKuNut, USA/USAF Doctrine for Airlift Operations?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:30:47 -0400
WesTralia wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > billh wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis
> > >
> > > > Nah. Bill Hudson just doesn't want to admit that equipment is ROUTINELY
> > > > used in ways that lie outside their doctrinal classification.
> > >
> > > Happens quit often, Kulkis. That doesn't change the fact of your idiocy in
> > > claiming the C130 is a strategic lift asset. You're a liar and a pathetic
> > > wannabe, KuKuNut. Nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > Let's see now.
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=strategic+C-130
> >
> > Separating the wheat from the chaff, we get a mighty fine array of citations:
> >
> > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm
> > http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_05.htm
> > http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_02.htm
> > http://www.sunnersberg.com/c1_c3_hercules.htm
> > http://www.rin.org.uk/env/personnel.html
> > http://british-forces.com/cig/aircraft/c-130.html
> > http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd77148e.html
> > http://www.gdls.com/releases/IAV_Specsheet.pdf
> > http://news.lmasc.com/article.htm?article_id=57
> > http://www.monmouth.army.mil/monmessg/newmonmsg/mar102000/10plane.htm
> > http://www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm
> > http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/55-65/ch4.pdf
> > http://www.ado.army.mil/weapons/firesupt/lw155.htm
> > http://enterpriseconsultancy.cs.amedd.army.mil/asp/result.asp?I=36296091947
> > http://call.army.mil/products/trngqtr/tq1-00/chapc.htm
> > http://www.mcguire.af.mil/PA/news/21stfact.htm
> > http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063787/html/134.html#pagetop
> >
> > GAME
> > SET
> > MATCH
> >
>
> The only thing, and I do mean the only thing that you have proven is
> that anyone with access to a search engine can become a half-wit
> expert on any subject.
>
So, you are claiming that the Commander of the 21st Air Force,
the Commander of the Air Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
didn't know what the fuck they were doing when they designated
the C-130's in the 21st Air Force as Strategic Airlift.
Bwwwwwwwwwwahahahahahaha.
> Now dance boy, dance!!! OUTED! LOL!
The only one dancing here is you.
>
> --
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 3 May 2001 16:32:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 May 2001 16:25:49 GMT, Rich Teer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Agreed; I meant a bitch to learn to become wizardly. I'm also talking
>about the mental switch required to think "modal". When I say
>wizardly, I mean knowing much more than the basic hjkl w b commands.
>I'm thinking markers, yanking and putting text in different file
>buffers, and changing text to some arbitrary character pattern.
In other words things you can't even do in most other editors. How long
does it take to become "wizardly" in M$'s versions of BASIC? Certainly
yanking and putting (copy, cut and paste in Windoze terms) aren't
particularly arcane in either, but try doing a regular expression search
and replace in any Word version...
>Don't get me wrong; I've been using vi exclusively for around 10 years.
>I can't see me changing in the next 10 either...
I use whatever is most useful for the task in hand. By preference,
that's vim for anything text based, it's got enough extras that I like
(keyboard macros, auto-indent) but I don't use anything like half the
features it has, I just don't need them for what I do.
Chris C
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
