Linux-Advocacy Digest #602, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (The Danimal)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Dr S.J. Cornell)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("~�~")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:46:04 -0400
The Danimal wrote:
>
> jet wrote:
> > The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > jet once again demonstrates an astounding lack of self-insight:
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > You guys STILL have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is
> > > > > anything OTHER than defective behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Defective in what way?
> > >
> > > a. Would you marry Aaron Kulkis?
> > >
> > > b. Would you marry a homosexual man?
> > >
> > > If the answer to both questions is "no," then we may conclude
> > > that you consider both men to be defective as potential
> > > marriage partners. You don't want to marry Aaron Kulkis
> > > because in your mind he carries showstopping defects.
> > > Ditto for the gay guy.
> >
> > I won't marry a woman, but I don't consider women "defective". You're just
> > playing word games.
>
> Actually I'm just joining in your word game. You seem to be
> arguing with Aaron over a suitable definition for "defective."
>
> Women are not potential sex partners for you; they are your
> competitors. If they can defeat you in competition then they
> are less defective than you are. The cool thing about competition
> is that the competitors don't define "defective"; rather,
> the judges do.
>
> For example, in the purely hypothetical scenario in which a
> younger, more attractive woman shows up and steals away a middle-aged
> woman's boy toy, we can be pretty sure Mr. boy toy regards the
> younger sleeker model as being less defective. If the middle-aged
> woman weeps over her loss she demonstrates that she regards his
> judgement as being relevant.
>
> > When Aaron says gay men are "defective", I don't think he just means he
> > doesn't want to sleep with them.
>
> Right. Aaron is pointing out that gay men are too defective to compete
> effectively with Aaron for what Aaron wants: attractive young women.
>
> Aaron can afford to mock gay men for serving his interests because he
> knows they will keep serving his interests no matter what.
>
> > > Most women I know do not want to share their beds with men who
> > > frequently stick their dicks up other men's assholes. Clearly
> > > these women regard that as defective behavior. Instead these
> > > women prefer to give the best of themselves, their care and
> > > attention, and the bulk of their free time to men who do not
> > > carry what they clearly regard as the homosexual defect.
> > >
> > > Jet, whenever you'd like to demonstrate that you don't regard
> > > homosexuality as undesirable behavior you could start by
> > > desiring homosexuals; i.e., treating homosexual men with the
> > > exact same respect, attention, care, and preference that you
> > > lavish on the minority of heterosexual men you regard as
> > > nondefective.
> >
> > Look, if Ricky Martin is gay, he can wipe his dick off and stick it in me
> > anytime.
>
> Do you require a straight man to have SMV (Sexual Market Value)
> as high as Ricky Martin before you will fuck him?
>
> If not, then you are implying that for a gay man to overcome the
> serious defect of his gayness in your mind he must be at the
> very top of the SMV scale.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
> p.s. Try picking examples that support your claims rather than your
> opponent's claims.
Brilliant, Dan...just brilliant.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:51:14 -0400
From: The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
jet wrote:
>
> The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > jet wrote:
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > jet wrote:
> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > You guys STILL have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is
> > > > > > anything OTHER than defective behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Defective in what way?
> > > >
> > > > nonproductive
> > >
> > > We've got 6 billion people. Doesn't seem like much of a defect.
> >
> > By your laughably ignorant measure nothing is a defect: suicide,
> > drug addiction, mass murder, self-mutilation, cannibalism,
> > infanticide, child abuse, etc. After all, """we"""'ve got 6 billion
> > people. (And who exactly is "we"? Can I exchange """my""" 6 billion
> > people for something else?)
>
> Sigh. I asked him *how* it was a defect. He said *nonproductive*. I assume
> he was referring to reproduction of the species.
Why? Clearly Aaron refers to reproduction of the INDIVIDUAL. Aaron
did not say nor did he even imply that homosexuals threaten his
reproductive prospects nor the survival of the entire species.
You could easily have asked Aaron whether your assumption is correct.
Yet you chose not to. Why? Do you normally invent facts about other
people and assume they are true? Of course I know the answer to that
is "Yes." Sloppy thinking is your trademark.
> Homosexuality doesn't seem to be much of a defect when it comes to that.
Neither does genocide. This is why your "good of the species"
viewpoint is worthless. The only "defective" behavior from that
point of view would be something that could exterminate an
entire species. For example, failing to fund asteroid-tracking
research.
In contrast, the individual lives the individual's life. The good
of the species as a whole is largely irrelevant to the individual.
> > Biologists largely abandoned the "good of the species"
> > notion somewhere around the middle of the last century, replacing
> > it with the notion of diverse individuals within a species competing
> > for resources and reproductive opportunities, leading to a distribution
> > of winners and losers that over the long term drives evolutionary
> > change. Jet, you might want to get up to date with "The Selfish Gene"
> > by Richard Dawkins. That is if you'd like to come off as being somewhat
> > smarter than Aaron.
>
> <sarcasm> How smart I appear in your eyes is really important to me.
Your efforts to debate me indicate otherwise. I think you'd like
nothing better than to demonstrate your intellectual superiority
and make sure I recognized it.
> So important, I'm going to rush out right now and get that book. </sarcasm>
You've already paid taxes for the privilege of borrowing it
from the library for free.
> > Jet, do you consider Aaron's rudeness to be defective behavior?
>
> No.
Your denial contradicts your frequent claim that Aaron's rudeness
makes him worthless to all women.
Are you now going to lapse into a typically Jetlike wordgame where
"defective" loses all meaning?
How do you define "defective"?
> > If so, why? The answer, of course, is that you don't like it.
> > A rude person offends many other people, probably a majority of
> > other people, and is therefore socially maladapted---i.e., defective.
>
> You're just playing word games. Aaron was, I believe, specifically talking
> about defective with regards to reproduction of the species.
Why did you believe this? Not even Aaron would say something
that ridiculous. How will a minority's reproductive suicide
threaten the survival of the majority?
> Not his personal tastes.
> > Most people, on some level, find homosexual behavior at least as
> > offensive as rudeness. That is to say, they don't like it. It's not
> > the sort of behavior they desire in the people closest to them:
> > their family.
>
> Guess I'm not "most people", then.
On the contrary. Most people know better than to express their
disgust for gay sex.
Incidentally, have you ever told a gay joke about a straight man?
> > This is most obvious when they have a child who turns
> > out to be a homosexual. A gay child who comes out usually causes the
> > heterosexual parent to experience moderate to severe distress.
> > A parent might be able to come to terms with that, but it's
> > usually a process of overcoming a huge disappointment. The parent,
> > of course, instinctively understands the threat to his or her
> > long-term genetic survival resulting from any severe reproductive
> > defects in his or her child. That is the source of the emotional
> > distress.
>
> If this concern of "long term genetic survival" is so strong, why do so many
> people choose not to have kids?
Define "so many." Even in advanced countries where contraception is
common, >90% of women reproduce.
The strength of a person's concern for long-term genetic survival
is evident in his/her desire to enjoy heterosexual sex. If you knew
even the first thing about evolutionary psychology you would
understand that our desires are adapted to the ancestral
environment in which effective contraception was not available.
If current conditions continue for a long enough time, eventually
humans will evolve resistance to voluntary contraception, just as
we would evolve resistance to any other biocide. Already we can
observe higher fertility among people who don't want to use
contraceptives. If that unwillingness has anything to do with
their genes then selection is occurring.
> > Jet, if during your few remaining years of fertility you bore a
> > son would you want him to grow up to feel intense and exclusive
> > urges to bugger other men? Or would you feel better if he grew
> > up to be normal?
>
> It would be a non issue.
For most people it would be an issue. From what I understand this goes
double for the African-American community.
For a black man, being gay is likely to be a serious social liability
in the communities where he is likely to live. Because, oddly enough,
it seems Aaron's point of view is even more common among black men
than it is in Aaron's neighborhood. Liability = defect.
You don't seem to understand that what is a "defect" is environmentally
determined. Humans would be defective if we had to live in the same
environment as penguins. Given the massive prejudice against gay
people, being gay is a defect. It may be possible to change that
through sufficiently massive propaganda efforts but so far nobody
has managed to do that, particularly in poorer and less educated
communities. At the moment, the only two effective strategies for
gay people to minimize their defect are:
a. Stay in the closet
b. Move to a gay community or a gay-tolerant community where
being gay is not a defect*
Straight people have more options.
*Of course in the reproductive sense being gay is still as much of
a defect as using reliable lifelong contraception is for a heterosexual.
I'm talking about escaping the social liabilities.
What do you suppose high school is like for most gay kids?
> > > Is masturbation defective behavior?
> >
> > You tell us what you think it is:
> >
> > a. If you knew a man masturbated from time to time,
> > would you automatically rule him out as a relationship
> > prospect for that reason?
>
> No.
Your view is normal for most women.
> > b. If you knew a man buggered other men from time to time,
> > would you automatically rule him out as a relationship
> > prospect for that reason?
>
> No.
Most women would disagree with you.
-- the Danimal
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr S.J. Cornell)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 18 May 2001 21:46:25 +0100
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > No matter what the cause : genetic, environmental, abuse, disease,
> > > whatever ... it's DEFECT causing DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.
> >
> Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > And I also note that you are incapable of producing a coherent
> > argument as to why it should be considered a `defect'.
>
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is sterility a defect
> a) no
> B) YES
If you had been paying attention, you'd know why this is irrelevant:
homosexuals can, and do, have children.
You seem to be trying to argue that homosexuality is a defect, because
it directs resources away from reproduction. Tell me, is it deviant
behaviour for hererosexuals to adopt children who are not genetically
their own?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:49:12 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > If they did Microsoft would not find Java threatening,
> > > but they do.
> >
> > micro$oft (read Gates) finds EVERYTHING threatening. They (it?) is
> > paranoid. Well, maybe not. Ther ARE people out to get it (him?), but for
> > good reason.
>
> No, they seem threats to their core business as, er,
> threatening.
>
> It's remarkable that Microsoft would, for instance,
> put OLE into the OS for anyone to use rather
> than making it an Office specific feature. They didn't
> see WordPerfect or Lotus as a threat;
They damn well DID see WordPerfect and Lotus as a threat, or they wouold
have been busy with all those bundling licenses the DOJ busted them for
the first time.
> their core
> business isn't office suites. It's development tools.
>
Their "core busines" is first, window$, second, window$ apps.
> > > They are afraid they'll lose mindshare among developers;
> > > and they should be. Java has been making inroads,
> > > "monopoly" or not.
> >
> > Inroads. Yeah. Uh-huh.
>
> Yeah. Very definitely.
>
> This .NET thing is not just some spasm; Microsoft
> has been losing developers to Sun. They want them
> back.
>
> *This* is the real threat to Microsoft's buisness
> model. As long as they have the developers, Windows
> cannot fail, and that gives Microsoft great influence.
>
As long as micro$oft has a desktop monopoly, window$ cannot fail.
> But if they lose the developers, then Windows
> is at *most* a bunch of (no doubt very stable :D )
> device drivers.
>
If developers could figure out a way to develop an OS that was
"compatible" with window$, thy would. That is what's scaring m$.
> [snip]
> > > > If m$ takes aim at a company, it will buy, lie, cheat steal, anything
> at
> > > > all to gain marketshare, as has been demonstrated (and ignored by
> you).
> > >
> > > The easy way is just to buy out the little beggars.
> > >
> > > And they do do that.
> > >
> >
> > And if they cant "buy" them or get them to "license" their p[roducts to
> > m$ at a rediculous price, m$ kills them.
>
> I don't know why you put the scare quotes around "buy"
> there; they very definitely do buy out their competitors
> sometimes.
>
And if they cant buy them they kill them. Or at least try.
> You may not like it, but you aren't the one getting all
> that money.
>
> MS also has been known to compete straight out,
> and sometimes they win. But sometimes they lose;
> and developers know this.
>
They have never won on competition alone.
> [snip]
> > > That's just your way of saying you don't like
> > > Microsoft.
> >
> > DONT freaking tell me what I think. You dont have a damn clue.
>
> It's not exactly a secret, Rick.
>
> > > But it's still true that companies have
> > > been able to successfully compete with Microsoft
> > > in the past, even so.
> >
> > Name 5.
>
> Intuit.
>
> MS seems to have given up on this one. This
> is the most clear cut example you could ask
> for.
>
The FTC made m$ give up on this one.
> AOL.
>
> Even the supposedly all-powerful trick
> of putting an MSN icon on the desktop
> couldn't unseat AOL. Not that we aren't
> all rooting for MS on this one. :D
>
There was a 5 year deal where m$ agrreed to put an AOL icon on the
desktop if AOL used IE. AOL is getting ready to bundle Communicator as
its default browser. We'l have to see what roadblocks m$ puts up.
> Oracle.
>
> MS is having real trouble getting database
> customers to believe in SQL Server. But
> they keep on plugging.
>
SQL has not been a core businees for m$. And it will stay difficult as
long as GPL SQL stuff is out there. Oracle startes out in the enterprise
arena on mainframes and minis. This has alsno not been m$'s area. This
is not a good esample of direct competition.
> IBM.
>
> Notes remains *the* groupware product;
> Exchange may have a user interface that
> doesn't make you want to kill yourself
> quite as violently as Notes does, but it
> just isn't customisable in the same way.
>
You are using Lotus as an example as a company that survived competition
with m$? Are you crazy?
> Apple.
>
> However I may personally feel about it,
> Quicktime remains very popular as a
> media distribution format. I dunno if its
> the Sorenson codec or the API or
> what.
>
Apple is not competition for m$. Quicktime competes agains window$'
media (gag) and real networks stuff. But m$ says it will soon
"integrate" window$ media into the OS. We'll have to see if the other
stuff survives, or goes the way of Netscape.
> [snip]
> > > > Tell that to Digital research, Go, Stack, Vobis, IBM, Lotus, etc, etc,
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > You mean their *lawyers*, I think.
> >
> > Damn. DONT tell me whjat I think. I said .."Tell that to Digital
> > research, Go, Stack, Vobis, IBM, Lotus, etc, etc," and thats what I
> > meant.
>
> Well, okay, you *should* have meant their lawyers. And
> in some cases not even that; Digital Research didn't
> sue; Caldera did.
>
Noorda pushed it. It was supposedly a large topic in the buy out talks.
And Digital DOES stand as an example of what happens when you compete
agains m$. They had a viable OS alternative to m$'s. m$ killed it
through immoral, unethical, illegal means.
> > > Not developers.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > here we go with the snips that will ultimately lose context again.
>
> Very true.
>
> [snip]
> > > Knife-fights don't involve a lot of stabbing the back,
> > > unless one participant is a whole lot slower and clumsier
> > > than the other.
> > >
> > > Which has been known to happen. But not much.
> >
> > Tell that to Go Computing. Tehy were nimble. And micros$oft knofed them
> > in the back. Dame with Stac.
>
> No; Go Computing wasn't nimble. Not as nimble as MS,
> anyway, which was able to put together a credible
> pen-computing platform in a very big hurry.
>
Have you lost touch with reality? When m$ announced pen window$, the
demos was smokle and mirrors. m$ sent an employee (Wink Thorn) to
videotape GO's demo to the Boston Computer Society. The another
employee (Marlin Eller) wrote code that would duplicate the demmo, pkus
a few things, but it wasnt real working pen code. m$ then pre-annonced
pen windows and froze the market. They didnt have a thing. and when pen
window$ came out, it sucked. I know. I tried to use it. Did you?
> Stac was plenty nimble. They out-nimbled Microsoft
> and bought the better patent. I may not approve
> of nimbleness-by-lawyer, but it should be acknowledged.
Which m$ infringed.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:54:55 -0400
billwg wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Well genius, why do you think there's not much app development going on
> > for Commodre 64/128, Apple II, Tandy Color Computer, Atari ST, etc?
> > Becasue no one buys the apps. Developers develop for the primary market
> > place. Which is micro$oft - who stole the market.
> >
> Maybe no one buys the apps because no one has the machines!
Duh
> Do you use any
> of them? Do you have a crystal set radio too? I don't think you can say
> Microsoft stole that market, they just showed everyone a better way.
Sure. Bonney and Clyde didnt rob banks either. They showed people a
better way to make withdrawals.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 18 May 2001 20:54:49 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > I worked for Pizza Hutt for 2 years (whilst at Uni.), they used a
: > UNIXWare server, with dumb terminals off it, running a custom written
: > application to take orders. Never crashed once the whole time I was
: > there. Please Microsoft and Jan, where is this so-called "mass
: > conversion" and
: > "correction" that supposidly is meant to be happening in the POS front.
: Many businesses with terminals have dumb terminals off a UNIX server. The
: local computer warehouse, BlockBuster Video and Rymans (a stationer) all
: use this system. these are the ones that spring to mind, but there are
: loads more.
: There are very good reasons for this.
: Dumb terminals are very cheap and very, very reliable.
: Fancy graphics are unnecessary, bordering on obstructive for this kind of
: application.
: You only need to shell out for one computer.
I'd also imagine that they'd be harder to hack if they didn't actually run an
os themselves. You'd have to hack the one big comp which should be battle hardened
for this application. I'm sure that it would be harder to keep hundreds of
windows machines all upto date security-wise and other-wise.
fred
------------------------------
From: "~�~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:55:14 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What part of OLE don't you understand?
>
> What part of Comp Linux Advocacy, don't you understand ?
Why > 80% of it has nothing to do with advocacy.
> > (why the hell would *you* use access anyway? isn't it another worthless,
> > evil product from the Borg?)
>
> This is a common misconception by Wintrolls like you. Most Linux advocates
> have used many MS apps, for many years. We know the problems that these Ms
> apps exhibit, because of our *experience*.
Most LinPerts still use them because of the need to or because they lie
about using the bloated also-rans such as StarOffice.
You more than likely used them long enough to figure out that you'd never
realize anywhere near 1/2 of the feature set and gave up on it. That, or
these apps are just too common for your fragile ego, in that millions of
folks do manage to become extremely productive with them.
Better to be a big fish in the small pond when personal issues preclude you
from dealing with all the other fish in the big pond.
> You on the other hand, puff and blow all day long about your wonderfull
> MS OS, and XP is coming to screw you, yet you still have no clue.
I don't huff and blow, and I don't use MS and wonderful in the same
sentence.
I only call attention to the copious amounts of BS perpetrated by LinPerts.
> > In any event, all you're doing is pasting an image (static) of the data
into
> > the document.
>
> Well DOH!
>
> > You update the data in the source, the data in the document stays the
same.
>
> Thank you for your elementary cut n paste lesson.
You're welcome.
> > If you embed the same, the link is "live". Changes to the source are
> > reflected in the document in which you "embedded" a live copy.
>
> And you're happy to do this on a WP (Word) that has enough trouble
handling
> a document over 200 pages as it is ?
I don't run across too many word processing documents over 200 pages.
But I suppose you're about to tell us that no author uses word?
> I can only conclude that Ubertroll specialises is *short* documents.
I don't use word unless the document requires it. I use plain text for 90%
or more of what I write. I won't hazard to guess what *short* appendage is
your speciality.
> Perhaps a list to take to the shop for lunch?
What a ... never mind.
> > D'oh.
> >
> > Another LinPert telling us how *everything* else in the world works.
>
> At least they have a clue, unlike you, troll boy.
Troll boy. That's cute. Best you can do? I don't think so, as I've seen it
more times than your name in the list of LinPerts cum LinZealots that post
here.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:58:12 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Rich Soyack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> >> >> And where do you suppose the men gets AIDS?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From women.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
>> >> >There is no transport mechanism for any such infection to happen.
>> >>
>> >> Well, it seems that the United States Centers for Disease Control
>> >> believes otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> But what do they know? The all-knowing homophobe Kulkis says
>> >> otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq21.htm
>> >>
>> >> Can I get HIV from having vaginal sex?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is possible to become infected with HIV through vaginal
>> >> intercourse. In fact, it is the most common way the virus is
>> >> transmitted in much of the world. HIV can be found in the blood,
>> >> semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected
>> >> with the virus. The lining of the vagina can tear and possibly
>> >> allow HIV to enter the body. Direct absorption of HIV through
>> >> the mucous membranes that line the vagina also is a possibility.
>> >>
>> >> The male may be at less risk for HIV transmission than the female
>> >> through vaginal intercourse. However, HIV can enter the body of the
>> >> male through his urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or
>> >> through small cuts or open sores on the penis.
>> >
>> >What was left out of this statement was the fact the there would have to
>> >be vaginal lessions for the AIDS virsus to be effectively transmitted to the
>> >male in vaginal intercourse.
>>
>> Indeed? So you too know better than the US CDC and all of those
>> medical researchers? A woman needs a vaginal lesion in order
>> to lubricate. Another thing I never knew.
>
>Spot the heterophobe
Kulkus, you're an idiot.
Do everyone a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool.
Soonest.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
