Linux-Advocacy Digest #736, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 17:13:06 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 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What is the licence aggreement for REDHAD professional server? ("Mart van de
Wege")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
rad50 character set (was Re: Blame it all on Microsoft) (Eric Smith)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Dark shadowy figure
on usenet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:45:50 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:08:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> David L. Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
> >> >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
> >> >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
> >> >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
> >> >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
> >> >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
> >> >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
> >> >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
> >> >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
> >> >>
> >> >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
> >> >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
> >> >> illegal.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
> >> >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
> >> >>
> >> >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
> >> >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
> >> >> your house without permission, is it not?
> >> >
> >> >%%%% They did at Waco.
> >>
> >> Those were not soldiers, they were federal law enforcement agencies.
> >> And they did have permission, in the form of a search warrant.
> >
> >1. They did NOT have the warrant with them
>
> Ok.
>
> >2. The warrant was void, because it was obtained under false pretenses.
>
> Do you feel an urge to fill a truck with fertilizer?
>
> >> >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
> >> >
> >> >%%%% They didn't at Waco.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And having guns did them a whole lot of good, to those Davidians,
> >> didn't it?
> >
> >Are you saying that if confronted with a totalitarian regime, one
> >should just submit? Go find a holocaust survivor to clue you into reality.
>
> Are you saying you are a volunteer soldier for a totalitarian regime?
No. I'm not part of the ATF.
> I *lived* under a totalitarian regime, kid, and it seems you are
> a collaborator, since you call the regime you are defending totalitarian.
>
> And would I be stupid enough to declare war on the FBI and the ATF while
> my kids are locked with me? No.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:52:50 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, you wrote:
> >Edward Rosten wrote:
> >>
> >> >> <> Also, using myself as an
> >> >> <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you do have a choice in your behavior.
> >>
> >> I have no choice. there is nothjing I could do that would make e
> >> homosexual.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >You have no choice over your DESIRES.
> >
> >You have COMPLETE control over your actions.
>
> Stand on a small chair, with your feet together, and your arms
> stretched out. Make someone hang from your hands something weighting
> about 20 pounds. Let's see, since you have COMPLETE control over your
> actions, if you can keep your arms stretched for, say, 3 weeks.
>
You can choose as to whether to engage in this behavior or not.
Hope that helps, pea-brained idiot
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:52:41 GMT
On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:16:01 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Linux users were complaining that I was putting their el-cheapo Hayes
>>>Modems circa 1995 into escape (command?) mode :)
>don't almost all modems have a time delay where they require some inactivity
>before honoring a "+++" command?
Hayes used to have a patent on that. Some modem makers tried to avoid the
patent by not having a delay. And even on those, it is only _outgoing_ data
that can cause a problem. The modem doesn't look for escape characters in
the incoming stream.
Even on brain-dead modems, you can turn off the escape sequence if you don't
need to switch back and forth between command mode and traffic mode.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation...
Date: 23 May 2001 20:54:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:45:15 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:06:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:46:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
>> >> >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
>> >> >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
>> >> >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
>> >> >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
>> >> >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
>> >> >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
>> >> >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
>> >> >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
>> >> >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
>> >> >> illegal.
>> >> >
>> >> >Absolutely not.
>> >> >
>> >> >Read the Posse Commitatus Act. It **CLEARLY** states that the Army can be used
>> >> >to do law enforcement with the permission of the governor of the state(s) in
>> >> >question.
>> >>
>> >> With permission.
>> >>
>> >> > Remember all the times the Army was used in the 1950's and 60's.
>> >>
>> >> Sure.
>> >>
>> >> >The MARINES can be sent into any state WITHOUT the permission of the Governor.
>> >>
>> >> And they will still not be a law enforcement agency.
>> >
>> >Bzzzzzzt! Wrong.
>> >They can do anything the President orders them to do, within the limits
>> >of the Constitution.
>>
>> If the law says a presidential order is enough to enter a person's house,
>> the presidential order *is* permission to enter such a house.
>>
>> Yet, the marines and the army are not a law enforcement agency. If you say
>> they are, please feel free to explain yourself.
>>
>> Can the president ask that the investigation of a murder be carried on by
>> the marines in all cases, for example?
Notice, no response.
>>
>> >> >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
>> >> >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
>> >> >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
>> >> >> your house without permission, is it not?
>> >> >
>> >> >See above.
>> >>
>> >> Above, you said the governor can give permission for them to become
>> >> a law enforcement force. Not that they can enter your house without
>> >> permission.
>> >
>> >is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
>> >WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
>>
>> I don't know. I am not a gun grabber. You are the one who is grabbing
>> a gun and getting a hardon about it.
>>
>> >a) no
>> >B) YES!
>>
>> I don't know. Is it a wet dream of yours?
Notice: no response.
>> >> >Also, if the gun-phobes' wet-dream of CONFISCATION is to implemented,
>> >> >how would it be done without entering citizens' homes?
>> >>
>> >> Right now, possession of certain kinds of pronography is forbidden,
>> >> and if found it is to be confiscated. Guns are not any different.
>> >
>> >is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
>> >WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
>>
>> Once more, Aaron. If you want to argue with the voices in your head,
>> you can do that using a puppet teather, and there is no need to do
>> it over usenet.
>>
>> >a) no
>> >B) YES!
>>
>> No or yes what?
>
>Thank you for demonstrating that you can't even follow the conversation.
Actually, I was rather confused by your message, since it clearly
was not a response to what I wrote, depite being formulated as one.
So, I thought you may want to clear it up.
I notice you don't reply anything at all, and your post consists of
solely this non sequitur. How typical.
>Game
>set
>match
>
>you lose.
Oh, like when you said
"game set match moron [...] I win!" ! Thanks for the memories of
your embarrasment.
You are still saying it wrong, you know. Go to the house of a friend
that can afford ESPN and watch the end of a tennis match someday.
>> >> >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
>> >> >
>> >> >The gun-phobes' wet-dream is a law that requires no search warrant.
>> >>
>> >> Stop arguing with the voices in your head. You said that if a
>> >> gun banning law is passed, you would invade another person`s
>> >> house. That would be illegal, unless certain OTHER laws are
>> >> passed. You could just as well say that you will blow his
>> >> brains with a bazooka, because in your mind a law will be
>> >> passed allowing you to shoot people with one.
>> >
>> >is it not the gun-grabber's wet dream to get universal gun confiscation
>> >WITHOUT the necessity of a search warrant...
>> >
>> >a) no
>> >B) YES!
>>
>> Perhaps you feel repeating yourself makes you look less insane. Let me
>> warn you that is not the case.
Notice: no response.
>> >> >Why is that, coward...
>> >>
>> >> Coward? I say that blind retaliation is the chicken's path.
>> >> Dare live peacefully, if you have the balls to do it.
>> >
>> >Why should I STUPIDLY attempt to live peacefully with those who REFUSE to be
>peaceful.
>>
>> Well, obviously you don't dare do it. Are you a christian by chance?
Notice: no response.
>> >If they want war, then I will give them war like they have never imagined
>>
>> The basis of your madness, obviously. Perhaps you:
>>
>> a) Lack imagination
>> b) Feel a need to threaten strangers
>> c) Have a severe inferiority complex, that you hide by posing over usenet
>> d) Were kicked too often in 3rd grade
Notice: no response.
>> >Hope that helps.
>>
>> Oh, it does, Aaron. It's always nice to show casual readers what kind
>> of nutcase you are.
Notice: no response.
Aaron, you chicken. Of course you need guns. You are too much of a coward
to deal in fair terms. You can dish it, but you can't take it. You are,
sir, a wuss.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 23 May 2001 20:58:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:45:50 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:08:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> David L. Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
>> >> >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
>> >> >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
>> >> >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
>> >> >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
>> >> >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
>> >> >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
>> >> >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
>> >> >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
>> >> >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
>> >> >> illegal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
>> >> >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
>> >> >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
>> >> >> your house without permission, is it not?
>> >> >
>> >> >%%%% They did at Waco.
>> >>
>> >> Those were not soldiers, they were federal law enforcement agencies.
>> >> And they did have permission, in the form of a search warrant.
>> >
>> >1. They did NOT have the warrant with them
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> >2. The warrant was void, because it was obtained under false pretenses.
>>
>> Do you feel an urge to fill a truck with fertilizer?
>>
>> >> >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
>> >> >
>> >> >%%%% They didn't at Waco.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And having guns did them a whole lot of good, to those Davidians,
>> >> didn't it?
>> >
>> >Are you saying that if confronted with a totalitarian regime, one
>> >should just submit? Go find a holocaust survivor to clue you into reality.
>>
>> Are you saying you are a volunteer soldier for a totalitarian regime?
>> I *lived* under a totalitarian regime, kid, and it seems you are
>> a collaborator, since you call the regime you are defending totalitarian.
>
>No. I'm not part of the ATF.
You claim to be a soldier. Are you not defending the US government?
The ATF is part of it. You *are* defending the ATF, vichyst.
You can't have it both ways: either the US government, of which the ATF
is part, is a totalitarian regime, and you are its minion, or it is not
a totalitarian regime, and the davidians were not defending against a
totalitarian regime.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:58:44 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:09:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:47:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <> Also, using myself as an
> >> >> > <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you do have a choice in your behavior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1Peter 5:7
> >> >>
> >> >> I assume you say this from a religious perspective. In that case,
> >> >> if you are a literalist, his behaviour doesn't matter all that
> >> >> much, since already the desire is a sin.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I desire to have $1,000,000,000
> >>
> >> Actually, that is pretty much a sin. It is called greed, Aaron.
> >>
> >> >Nonetheless, that wouldn't justify me robbing banks now, would it.
> >>
> >> Of course not.
> >
> >Thank you for agreeing with my point.
>
> What point?
>
> >Desires != justification.
>
> And smart != Kulkis. And in both cases, I had never said the opposite.
>
You implied it.
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
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: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the licence aggreement for REDHAD professional server?
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:01:20 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard Thrippleton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KerryHB
> wrote:
>>I am thinking of using many cheap Intel PC as SERVERS.
>>
>>Can I buy one copy Redhat Professional Server and install it on 50 PCs?
> You can buy one copy and install it on as many PCs as you like.
> Alternatively you could download for free one copy and install it on as
> many PCs as you like.
>
> Richard
Just be sure that you are a very good administrator, 'cause Red Hat is
not going to help you if you run into trouble. That's what the money on
the boxed set is for.
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 23 May 2001 21:01:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:52:50 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, you wrote:
>> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> <> Also, using myself as an
>> >> >> <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you do have a choice in your behavior.
>> >>
>> >> I have no choice. there is nothjing I could do that would make e
>> >> homosexual.
>> >
>> >Wrong.
>> >
>> >You have no choice over your DESIRES.
>> >
>> >You have COMPLETE control over your actions.
>>
>> Stand on a small chair, with your feet together, and your arms
>> stretched out. Make someone hang from your hands something weighting
>> about 20 pounds. Let's see, since you have COMPLETE control over your
>> actions, if you can keep your arms stretched for, say, 3 weeks.
>>
>
>You can choose as to whether to engage in this behavior or not.
You said you have COMPLETE control over your actions. Are you telling
me you can not perform this action? Then you don't have COMPLETE
control over your actions. You can not control your actions when
there is a stronger force controlling you (in that case, gravity).
>Hope that helps, pea-brained idiot
You know, putting your own description in that way in that sentence is
very nongrammatical.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: rad50 character set (was Re: Blame it all on Microsoft)
Date: 23 May 2001 14:01:39 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leonard Fehskens) writes:
> Since many alphanumeric applications could get by with 50 characters
> (26 single case alphabetics, 10 numerics, and 14 punctuation and
> "carriage control" characters), "radix50" was a common encoding on the
> early PDP machines.
rad50 was 50 octal, so it had fourty (decimal) characters. 26 alpha, 10
numeric, four symbols, and no carriage control.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 23 May 2001 21:04:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:58:44 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:09:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:47:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > <> Also, using myself as an
>> >> >> > <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But you do have a choice in your behavior.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1Peter 5:7
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I assume you say this from a religious perspective. In that case,
>> >> >> if you are a literalist, his behaviour doesn't matter all that
>> >> >> much, since already the desire is a sin.
>> >> >
>> >> >I desire to have $1,000,000,000
>> >>
>> >> Actually, that is pretty much a sin. It is called greed, Aaron.
>> >>
>> >> >Nonetheless, that wouldn't justify me robbing banks now, would it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course not.
>> >
>> >Thank you for agreeing with my point.
>>
>> What point?
>>
>> >Desires != justification.
>>
>> And smart != Kulkis. And in both cases, I had never said the opposite.
>
>You implied it.
Only in your mind. Maybe the voice over your left shoulder implied it,
though. But hey, let's embarrass yourself a bit: where did I imply such a
thing?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:06:35 -0400
From: Dark shadowy figure on usenet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> You can choose as to whether to engage in this behavior or not.
How about choosing to edit your posts and stop spamming the fucking
newsgroups with your stupid sig? I'll bet Jet Silverman could kick your
ass.
> Hope that helps, pea-brained idiot
Talking to yourself Kulkis? First it was having sex with yourself, now
you're talking to yourself. What a spamming, pea-brained, first-class
WANK. So, what position did you have in the military, dork? Whore for
the drill sargeant?
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
