Linux-Advocacy Digest #258, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Aaron (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Aaron (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:00 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 04:59:28
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:39:20 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
>> > basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the command
>> > line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END don't work,
>>
>> They work for me.
>
>But not del, and it's annoying as hell. Anyway to fix it?
It isn't broken. I told you; call your OEM. If you don't have one, go
hit a non-advocacy group.
>> > It doesn't have a pop-up command history like cmd.exe (the F7 key)
>>
>> Up and down arrow keys scroll through the history. You can search the
>> history with Ctrl-R.
>
>It's not the same as F7, with F7 on CMD, you get a list of all the recent
>commands are displayed, so you can choose from them.
Choose how? With the *mouse*? <*snicker*>
Nobody cares if it's "not the same" as Microsoft's broken shell
substitute. Write a GPL command.com for Linux, if you love their
disfunctional hacks so much. Bash is a clearly superior shell to
anything that Microsoft is even capable of producing.
>> > doesn't have very good TAB completion (in cmd, subsequent hits of TAB
>> > cause cycling of files in the dir that meet the search criteria).
>>
>> My God, you have actually posted something useful. Does it work that
>> way on NT as well (if I enable completion in the registry), or only W2K?
>
>Get TweakUI, it handles it quite nicely.
>I *think* that it's the same as 2000 on NT.
Who knows? With Microsoft's legendary lack of consistency, there's no
telling, really, and then it might well change again with each version
of XP, or maybe depending on whether you've installed some other
Microsoft crapware. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:01 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 20:17:35 -0400;
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > > Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
>> > > > Windows.
>> > >
>> > > Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
>> > >
>> > > But no credible source says that.
>> >
>> > The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
>>
>> No, they don't.
>
>
>Are you totally ignorant or what.
What. He's probably a sock puppet.
>If vendors under a per-processor
>license shipped a competing license, the venodr had to pay for the 2
>licenses. Those costs were passed to the consumer, which raised the cost
>of the computer compared to the vendors competitors. What part of this
>do you NOT understand?
The part where it is "restraint of trade" or "exclusive contracts"; he's
trying to weasel out of admitting MS got caught, because they did not
get convicted.
>Thats what the whole consent decree was about.
Actually, that was only one aspect of the consent decree, which more
extensively dealt with forced bundling of Windows with DOS. The FTC
lawyers were never willing to bring a case on the ppl charges alone; it
wasn't until the DoJ took over the investigation into Microsoft's
on-going monopolization that MS rolled over and agreed to the consent
decree supposedly banning ppl. They almost immediately re-implemented
it using a loophole, making even more clear their criminal intent.
The bundling issue suffered the same fate: the consent decree supposedly
designed to prevent it ended up allowing it because MS fraudulently
represented their product development concerning Chicago, which then
became Win95. One thing you have to say for Bill Gates and Microsoft;
they may be criminals, but they are very dishonest criminals. This is
what makes Daniel's failure to examine the justification for anti-trust
laws really moronic.
>> They have said that Microsoft made some deals
>> with some vendors where MS got paid for each
>> processor shipped, with Windows or no.
>>
>> But none that excluded other OSes.
>>
>> Ferinstance, dual booting Windows and some obscure
>> hobby OS is quite a common configuration for
>> the techno-elite. A compy with a per-processor
>> license could have addressed that market very
>> nicely, thank you.
>
>What does that have to do with buying preconfigured computers.
Nothing, probably. He's just apologizing for the monopoly, so to speak.
[...]
>> Yes, but it iddn't work, the DoJ sued anyway, and
>> they *went* to trial, and got convicted, and now they
>> look likely to win it on appeal.
>
>The DOJ took Microsoft to court for violation of the consent decree and
>OTHER predatory actions. What do you base your appeal statement on?
His fear that Microsoft really is a criminal organization, making him
nothing more than a dupe, when he wants to think he is the more rational
among us.
>Almost every legal analysis I read said the judges asked very hard
>questions of the DOJ, but that you really cant predict the outcome based
>on the questions.
>
>> They cut a deal to avoid going through all that,
>> but it did not work.
>
>... because Microsodt didnt curb their behavior. They bragged about it.
That was funny, wasn't it. Here the Judge is trying so hard to broker a
deal, and MS goes and shoots themselves in the dick by publicly
proclaiming that they will steadfastly continue to break the law.
Guffaw!
[...]
>> > > Okay, putting in features that the Department of
>> > > Justice had not approved.
>> >
>> > No, putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
>> > marketplace.
>>
>> Horrors! Competition! Can't have that!
>
>Read the damn sentence.
>... putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
>marketplace.
>What part of illegally dont you understand?
The part where it means anything; Daniel believes himself above the law,
just like Microsoft does, apparently, refusing to even take the legality
of their actions into account and still claiming they are acting
ethically. Its a travesty, but ignorance is something which requires
constant effort to correct.
>> > > But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
>> > > just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
>> >
>> > They have NEVER competed on a level playing field.
>>
>> There are no level playing fields. MS competed,
>> and the consumers benefited from this
>
>The consumers have NOT bebefited. They lost OS choice and pay higher
>prices to Microsoft for the privelidge.
According to Microsoft (and I assume Daniel has gotten this in the
briefings, if he is really a sock puppet) they should be glad they are
allowed to use a PC at all.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: To Aaron
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:03 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>> What "the rhetoric" are you referring to?
>>
>> >That has been obvious for a long time but I guess it is too much to ask
>> >politicians to say what they really mean. There is no such thing as a
>> >"level playing field" or "free trade", never has been, probably never
>> >will be.
>>
>> Not in an absolute sense, of course not. These are abstractions,
>> metaphors, even. Tariffs and subsidies are used to ensure a level
>> playing field (its effects on those outside the playing field are not > of direct
>concern) to allow free trade (within that playing field), as >I've
>> said. Sometimes they do that well and sometimes they're used
>> counter-productively. Whining about politicians as a handy "them" to
>> demonize is just rhetoric.
>
>How is New Zealand exported lamb to America not on a level playing
>field?
The edge of the playing field is our own borders; whether it is level is
entirely a domestic consideration. I never said it would be "fair to
foreigners". I apologize if that seems deceptive to you, and even more
so if it seems bigoted or nationalistic. It is not. Both the US and
New Zealand will be better off if they maintain separate economies.
>is the US finally, after 10 years realising the damage from
>pursuing the strong dollar policy?
What damage are you imagining? Things seem pretty good, here, in terms
of lamb or whatever.
>maybe, instead of giving out
>subsidies they should reduce taxes, reduce tarriffs, and actually get
>some marketing going to encourage people to buy "US Lamb". It doesn't
>exactly take a rocket scientist to sort that one out.
No, I'm afraid I cannot abide by suggesting that the government try to
influence the preferences of our citizens; folks in the US are not as
tolerant of such socialist policies as those in the rest of the world.
I would indeed prefer they just hand out money, when it is necessary. I
am not making any claim that any particular case is necessary; I don't
eat lamb or produce it, and don't care if it is ever available at any
price. The discussion is the general case, and you can't indict the
correctness of subsidies and tariffs by simply showing a single case of
inappropriate results (not that you've shown any such case.)
>Since 1984, tariffs and subsidies have gradually been removed.
And a quickly growing (now all-encompassing) amount of the trade in the
world soon accrued to an exceedingly small number of mega-corporations.
>Subsidies went in one foul swoop, and when the farmers complained, the
>government said, "tough luck, your free ride has now ended", and they
>were re-elected, then they gradually removed tariffs, old, inefficient
>businesses close, whilst new, more efficient, niche market businesses
>opened.
Is this NZ, or the US? NZ is a vastly different (and, you must admit,
much simpler and smaller) economy than the US, and I am still under the
impression that what you call a reversal of subsidies and tariffs was
actually the removal of a socialist economy controlled by the government
directly.
>Very soon, the US will face stiff competition from China, who will be,
>in 10 years time, the US's equal. It either the US addresses these
>issues now, or get hammered by China later.
China will get hammered by themselves. A totalitarian state simply
cannot keep up with a free nation in long-term development. That's been
proved on some rather large scales. Even if one out of five humans is
in China, not one out of five are communists who want to glorify the
state, you see. Humanity is made of individuals; society is an
abstraction, not a real thing. Individuals produce more when they're
free to produce what they want, and rarely produce less than when told
what to produce by someone else.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: To Aaron
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:04 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>> Free trade does not require international free trade. Its called "free
>> trade for US firms within the US", and whether foreign companies get to
>> participate is entirely up to the US, and whether we think it would
>> benefit us; it is presumed if allowed that it would benefit the foreign
>> company, which is why we use tariffs and subsidies rather than simple
>> regulation. If it is worth their while to overcome this 'uneven playing
>> field' (actually an even playing field, taking both the international
>> capital and the international production into account) then they can
>> benefit from the opportunity of free trade within the U.S.
>>
>> When it comes down to it, if you are unable to say "fuck everyone else"
>> if it is necessary to avoid "fuck me", then you are simply not being
>> honest, or reasonable.
>>
>> I'm not claiming that every aspect of the U.S. position on tariffs and
>> subsidies is reasonable, or even honest. I'm merely pointing out that
>> presuming otherwise is begging the question.
>Just in the latest study, New Zealand is the third most liberal country,
>in terms of business policy next to Hong Kong and Singapore. With that
>outstanding stat, what are US business still picking their asses whilst
>trying to maintain a presence in one of the over regulated countries in
>the OECD.
Because we are a much larger and complex economy than these relatively
minuscule states. Hong Kong and Singapore might be hotbeds of business
activity, but most of it is simply management and application of
international capital, not really part of the local economy at all, and
so how liberal a country these places may be is not a compelling
humanitarian argument. In short, there isn't anything "outstanding"
about that stat, other than the lessons you have yet to extract from it.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:06 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 00:42:05
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 15:10:51
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >> [...]
>> >> >I won't argue that point!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Flatfish
>> >>
>> >> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>> >>
>> >> You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>> >> know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>> >> computers.
>> >
>> >Thanks a lot!
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>No help needed.
I take it you're an old man with a self-depricating opinion of his
computer skills? Sorry. It's not my fault! :-)
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:05 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 06 May 2001 02:07:58 GMT;
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:54:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>>> [...]
>>>>I won't argue that point!!!
>>>>
>>>>Flatfish
>>>
>>>BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>>>
>>>You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>>>know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>>>computers.
>>
>>
>> This coming from a person who posts reams of words that say so little
>Ahh but if you have the slighest sincerity, and even a little knowledge
>of the subjest, Max's postings make perfect sense.
>
>Onya MAX !
T'anks. I think that "subjest" is another "freudian [sic]" like
'producted' in another post. :-)
If you have any knowledge of the subjest.... ;-}
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 14:44:14 -0400
JVercherIII wrote:
>
> Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
> (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of living
> off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
> are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
> innovation. They never have come up with an original idea. The take other
> people's ideas/programs/etc (with or without their permission), reverse
> engineer them, improve upon them and release them and then use their market
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "replace functionality with a braindead but *pretty* interface"
> dominance in the OS area to push competing products out of the market. This
> doesn't seem to be a good way to promote innovation. Eventually people will
> not want to get into the market for fear of having to compete with
> Microsoft. This really doesn't have anything to do with Linux per-say, it's
> just a pet peeve I have with Microsoft. (BTW one BLATENT example of this is
> that Sun sued the crap out of Microsoft (successfully) because of Visual
> J++... I think they came to some kind of agreement later but I'm not sure.
> Anyway, Microsoft is going to release C# at the end of the year. It is a
> carbon copy clone of Java in the way it behaves and even the syntax of the
> language - at least based on the beta 1 copy that I have of VS.net. However
> I think that this time they are going to fail because it lacks a number of
> things java is known for, such as cross-platform compatibility. And you know
> Microsoft won't be making versions for other OSs anytime soon... Very
> stubborn about that.)
> And I think you will see now that a lot of the stuff Microsoft has been
> giving away (IE, etc) they will start charging for in future versions. After
> the competition has been squashed, people will have to buy their products
> because they will have no other choice.
> In that sense it is good to have other options such as Linux for operating
> systems and open source software.
> One thing I dont understand about a lot of the arguments going on with
> GPL,etc is that no one is forcing you to use any license. If you do that
> it's your choice. What's the big deal? If I want to give something away I
> wrote and I'm proud of it's my business, not Microsoft's, and if I want to
> charge for it it's nobody's business either. It was like that before the
> Linux, Microsoft, GPL, etc and it will be that way later on too.
>
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <_lJI6.3589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> 4-19-2001
> > >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
> > >>
> > >> "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
> > >> discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
> > >> through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
> > >> arbitrary holes in the firewall."
> > >>
> > >> 4-25-2001
> > >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
> > >>
> > >> "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange
> > >> authentication information and delete it shortly after. This can be
> > >> abused by a local user to gain access to the X server and can result in
> > >> a compromise of the account kdesu accesses."
> > >>
> > >> 4-25-2001
> > >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
> > >>
> > >> "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux
> > >> 7.1 (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they
> > >> were world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap
> > >> file(s), possibly including passwords."
> > >
> > >
> > > After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
> > > and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
> > > tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
> > >
> > > Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page
> > > file.
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > Ah, Chad the security expert! Even Erik was gracious enough to admit that
> > this was only an example, but I'll tell you what's wrong with this
> > comparison: of the 4 RH exploits mentioned, only 50% are remote exploits,
> > the other 2 are local exploits. Of the Microsoft examples mentioned,
> > *ALL* were remote exploits. Get it now Chad? Evidently MS is smart enough
> > to lock down the page file, but with all their billions still think
> > connecting an insecure machine to the Internet is a good idea.
> >
> > Erik just demonstrated the principle that just because it's Open Source,
> > it need not be secure, which is true. Both of you forget that there is a
> > difference in the severity of the exploits. The difference? You are
> > turning Erik's facts into an ad hominem attack on Adam Warner, whereas
> > Erik engages in civil discussion.
> >
> > HTH, HAND,
> >
> > 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
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 14:51:31 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 19:33:13 GMT, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
> >> use her real name in a advocacy group.
> >
> >That makes me an idiot then.
> >
> >Why not use your real name? What are you afraid of?
>
> I have very strong opinions and have always tended to be that way
> whether it is politics or operating systems or what ever. That doesn't
> mean that my opinions can't change over time. Why commit myself to
> something that might change in the future?
>
> I don't judge others but I feel it is foolish to use ones own name and
> I feel that people who ignore the content of a message and focus on
> that fact are as equally foolish as the grammer/spelling police.
>
> Read the message, agree/disagree/debate.
>
> flatfish
Just admit it:
you're a fucking COWARD
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
