OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/UU991204.zip/Ua991203.txt

Text File | 1999-12-04 | 1MB | 38,933 lines

                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 27-Nov-1999 to Friday, 03-Dec-1999

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    28-Nov-99 03:23:08
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:27
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: [e-mail] (Gregory L. Hansen)

In article <38406c7c$0$[e-mail]>,
Quantum Leaper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:81mjl6$lgr$[e-mail]...
>> In article <383ecda0$0$[e-mail]>,
>> Quantum Leaper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> >news:383e84bf$4$obot$[e-mail]...
>> >> On <[e-mail]>, on
>> >> 11/25/99 at 05:19 PM,
>> >>    [e-mail] (Alan Baker) said:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The fact that Byte didn't do an article on the Macintosh doesn't mean
>it
>> >> > didn't exist. Or do you think that after Apple saw the article on
>> >> > Windows in Byte they just dashed off the Mac OS in a month?
>> >>
>> >> Of course you are right. When Gates released Windows 1.0, Apple
>threatened
>> >> suit claiming that MS had ripped off the Mac interface. Gates dismissed
>> >> the claim in the press with a remark that both he and Jobs had raided
>> >> XEROX PARC which was the real inventor of the interface.
>> >
>> >You do realize that Doug Egsbend (sp?) created the GUI idea in 1969 when
>he
>> >demo a primative GUI and the mouse.
>>
>> And that Jeff Raskin did a Ph.D. thesis on the subject before then?
>>
>One is abstact and the other in concrete,   so one is the father of the GUI
>and the other isn't.  Doug had a demo of the GUI and mouse in '69,  what did
>Jeff ever show other than the paper?   It simular to a decussion I had with
>a friend of mine over who invented Video games,  was the the guys who did
>SpaceWar or the guy who did the tech demo in '59 with a Tennis type game
>(Pong type)?    SpaceWar is consider the father of modern video game even
>though it isn't truly the first.

The concept needs to come before the engineering.  Jeff Raskin's thesis,
as I understand it, was basically the Finder.

Of course, he pulled together other people's work.  He didn't invent the
idea of the GUI, but he may have invented the notion of killing the
command line and making every part of the user interface a GUI.  His
vision was that the graphical interface shouldn't be used just to display
a picture or to allow one to draw a picture with the mouse, but the
graphical interface should control every part of the computer's operation.
That was new.

--
"That's not an avocado, that's a grenade!" -- The Skipper

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Indiana University, Bloomington (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 04:14:26
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:27
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Joe Adam" <[e-mail]>

> > Interestingly, you can't upgrade Win98 to Win98 SE with a full version
CD
> > without a tedious clean install. You can upgrade any version of Mac OS,
> from  really outdated stuff to OS 8.6 with OS 9 CD or perform clean
installs...
> >
Sure you can, there are several ways to install it.... I routinely
re-install Windows SE (Upgrade CD) on a newly formatted drive... No use
having all that other mess on there.  I do own Full versions of 95 and 98 so
I can install it anyway I want...


Joe


--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
www.CyberMedics.Net!
Web Hosting for Less!
1-800-813-8224
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 04:51:28
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:27
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:

... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
>between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.

    What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

    And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
least a port of the Workspace Shell.

    I mention Linux because that seems to be succeeding where OS/2
has failed. I don't mean to pick on you OS/2 lovers out there, but IBM
seems to be content to let it slowly go the way of the Amiga.

--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        28-Nov-99 06:09:28
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:81o62o$kd3$[e-mail]...
|
[snip]
| >
| > Well, the mistake is thinking that people are really more efficient
| > using something other than a VT100. For lots of office work, this
| > probably isn't true <g>.
| >
|
| Actually, my experience is that it is true. Remember that while running
| windows the VT session is still available, with the added benefit of being
| able to cut and paste from the screen to other applications, not something
| that is usually available on a simple serial connection.

There are few corporate uses for VTs.  The most common that I have
experienced is database access (data entry/retrieval).  I have yet to see
someone create marketing docs, do video or image creation, manager
their own time (as an excutive would), or conduct market research
through a terminal session.  Besides that, it would be a drag on
productivity in most of the environments in which I have worked.

I hear a lot of "limit what the user can do" arguments from the Unix
community, but I've also had the pleasure of speaking with a
Silicon Valley CEO about how he keeps his employees in their
jobs.  He absolutely refuses to restrict the computing environment
of his employees what-so-ever.  "A happy employee is a productive
employee", and this particular CEO took that VERY seriously.

So why again should I restrict my users to a VT and only that
software that a mainframe could serve them?

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Nov-99 22:09:26
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:28
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: John Warwick <[e-mail]>

In article <81plqk$o8s$[e-mail]>, "Daniel Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> "John Warwick" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:jw-2711991044340001@192.168.0.4...
> > In article <[e-mail]>, John unekis <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > If you program, check out the Mac Toolbox as burned into ROM in 1984
> > and the current Windows API's.
>
> I program, and I have copies of the docs for both.
>
> And they are different. Very different.

[huge snip of documented "differences"]

> Anyway, you can see why I find these claims of Microsoft absconding with
> MacOS source code to be a little far-fetched. They seem to have learned
> from the MacOS APIs, in the sense of seeing what went wrong when they
> were put to use, but I can't accept that they reused MacOS code.

Clearly, you are heads, hands and feet, a better more knowledgable
programmer than I. In fact, I wouldn't call myself a programmer at all
as I just dabble... however...

I would *expect* QuickDraw to differ from MS graphics routines as QD
represented the Mac crown jewels for many years. They probably could
have been sued into the dirt for copying that.

Plus, I was not trying to imply that MS copied source code, but rather
that many of the Win32 routines have extremely similar, identical in
some cases, names and functions. I have very limited exposure to Win32,
but what I have seen "looks" like a rip from the Mac toolbox. Pascal
naming conventions even...and since the Mac toolbox greatly predates
Win32 API's - I'd say the Mac toolbox was the model.

I think your last sentence says the same thing I'm saying - "They seem
to have learned from the MacOS API's...".

JW

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        28-Nov-99 06:16:09
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
| In article <UOJ%3.31608$[e-mail]>, Brent Davies
| wrote:
| >
| >NT is cheaper than all other commercial Unices and Novel.
|
| Depends what you're doing with it.  I obtained Solaris license and media
| for $10 plus shipping, for personal use only.  Just out of curiosity, do
| you know what a commercial Solaris license costs?  (I don't.)  I'm just
| wondering if you can document the "NT is cheaper than all commercial
| unixes" claim.

I guess I got it with "both barrels" on this one.

I made a claim that swept a little too broad.  I should have said, "many
commercial Unices, and Novel."

While you can buy NT under a "not for resale" price, it is still more
expensive than $10.  I bought my copy of NT Workstation for $45
and my copy of NT Server for $99.  Again, these are not for resale,
personal-use copies.

|
| You also sort of have to define "commercial" at this point, as Red Hat
| and its ilk have put us in the weird position of having "commercial" free
| unixes.

I would tend to lump it into "free" if only for the fact that I don't care
to solve the puzzle you have brought up with this one.  Since Linux can
be obtained anywhere for free, I wouldn't lable a Linux Distributor as a
"Commercial Unix" just because they happen to be able to get people
to buy a free product.

If I were put into a corner and forced to define "Commercial Unix", I
suppose I would say that any Unix that is entirely modified, kernel and
all, by a corporation which keeps total rights to the OS, that would be
a "Commercial Unix".  Examples would be HP/UX, IRIX, and AIX.
Solaris has become somewhat nebulous since the release of its source.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        28-Nov-99 06:24:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:383fd490$1$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <UOJ%3.31608$[e-mail]>, on 11/27/99 at 05:16
| AM,
|    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
|
|
| > A corporate network requires three things:
| > 1. Server OS
| > 2. Server access licenses
| > 3. Client OS
|
| > Why did you fail to include #3 in your example of Warp Server?  Does
| > Warp Server come with free client workstation operating systems?  I
| > couldn't say for sure that it doesn't, but I find it HIGHLY unlikely.
|
| Because a company which has 50 workstations doesn't need to update the
| client OS to use WarpServer. It can update its existing Warp 3 or 4
| desktops to Y2K compliance at no charge.

So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
www.microsoft.com lately?

|
| > So we can see that you example is tainted.  Also, since we know that
| > Windows9x costs around $30 when it is included OEM with a PC, your
| > pricing model falls apart.
|
| Windows 9x OEM will can only legally be installed on a virgin hard disk.
| Anyone who uses it to update a DOS/WfWG installation is breaking the terms
| of the OEM license.

Oh, that's right.  You are talking your pre-retirement experience and trying
to apply it to our modern day discussion.  Well, I've not seen an
installation
of WfW for ages, so I find this to be a non-issue.

|
| > Let's look at NT Server's pricing model.  The server OS is around $650.
| > This includes 10 CALs.  CALs cost $60 each, or can be purchased under
| > the Microsoft Open License Program (MOLP) for a per-license discount.
| > $650 + 2,400 for 40 extra CALs.  Since you didn't quote pricing for the
| > client OS licenses in your Warp model, I won't include the client OS
| > licenses in the NT model (even though I realize it is incomplete.  I do
| > this for equal comparisons).
|
| Unless a company is willing to use a non-Y2K compliant client, the company
| must buy a new OS for each of its workstations or use Warp.

Once again, wrong.  And if you mention WfW again, I think I'll fall off my
chair laughing.  You can't get too far with modern software if you're
running
WfW.  It's also likely that not a single piece of WfW software is Y2K
ready either.  The OS upgrade cost will be the least of a WfW user's
worries.

|
| > Look at your examples.  If we go by what you've specified, we end up
| > with a Warp Server, plenty of CALs, but no client OSs to connect to the
| > server, and no applications to run on the clients even if we had OSs.
| > With your NT example we wind up having a server with 50 CALs, all of the
| > client OSs that we need, and software to boot.  Your NT example is
| > complete, but your Warp example is only half complete.
|
| No, you brain is only half complete. The workstations all have an
| operating system which doesn't need to be updated with WarpServer for
| eBusiness.

Now we move to personal attacks.  I guess that's your old age showing.  Us
young whipper-snappers don't deserve any respect, huh?

When have you built a network that had 50 workstations all with installed
OSs, but there was no network, or at the very least no network server?  You
see, your hypothetical argument is falling to pieces around you.

Besides, if I walk into a company with 50 workgrouped Win95
workstations, I will NOT need to upgrade the client OSs for ANY reason.
Will I need to update them?  Yes.  Can I get those updates for free?  Yes.

|
| > Are all of your arguments this flawed?
|
| Is your brain really so flawed it can't comprehend we are talking about
| upgrading a company network?

I think anyone who has read my last response knows that I'm right no
the mark.  We'll see if you catch on in your next reply.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        28-Nov-99 06:29:19
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
| Look at the header on your original msg: NT advocacy is at the end of
| a group including MAC & OS/2. If you don't like hearing about the rest
| of the world, keep your posts confined to your own area of interest;
| I assure you, we would all like it if you did this.
|
| If you think that NT is the lowest cost solution, do two things:
|
| 1) Purchase and use NT
| 2) Beware of people attempting to sell you bridges, they use the
| NT mailing list, you know...

I am having a debate about comparing a variety of
products in a network installation scenario.  Would
I be participating in such a discussion if I didn't want
to hear about the "rest of the world", as you put it?

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I
don't want to hear your opinion.  However, you
didn't post your opinion on the subject matter, did
you?  You posted your opinion about me personally,
which is your prerogative.

If you're not going to participate in the debate, then
don't participate at all.  And no, telling me that my
descenting opinions don't belong in your group is
NOT participating in the debate.  I didn't start this
thread, but in order to continue the current debate
I will need to continue cross posting it to your
groups, since there are others thier that want
to participate.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 00:22:13
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 04:44:28
Subj: Okay, here is an interesting POV re: Microsoft and lawsuits

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

Well, I was an avid OS/2 user until Feb 1997.  Forget the reasons why
but I turned to Windows NT as it had the most up-to-date and reliable
applications available.

Personally, despite OS/2's bugs, I was willing to continue using it at
the time since I had pumped shitloads of money into hardware and
software which were claimed* to be OS/2 friendly (half the hardware
wasn't despite allegations to the contrary.)

Anyway, I switched to Windows NT (I now use 98 since although
multitasking is even worse, display and animations are MUCH faster.
Multitasking isn't much of an issue any longer although I can still tell
the difference between even Windows95 and MacOS 9 in terms of preemptive
multitasking!  Ouch!)

Now if programmers weren't terrorized by Microsoft or allowed to write
for non-Windows platforms of their own free will instead of MS coercing
them to write for Windows only, do I get a big chunk of money from MS
because they controlled the programmers who write the applications which
make computers useful in the first place and therefore compelled me to
go Wintel or otherwise sit in a desert?

See, that's my problem.  If Microsoft had NOTHING to do with coercing
programming companies to write for Windows only, then Microsoft is
hardly guilty of being a monopoly since it is the APPLICATION DEVELOPERS
who are too (sorry) fucking lazy to support free choice in operating
systems or platforms.  (gee, why else did the Crapintosh and Amiga lose
face and die out?  Somebody somewhere was telling everybody to buy a PC
with DOS/Windows on it.  It wasn't me, I proudly was an Amiga advocate
at the time (1990-1995, even after Commodore snuffed it and I felt
compelled to get a PC and chuck OS/2 on it because of the prettier
interface.)  Well, the Crapintosh is worse than dead, it's alive...
Apple still exists, unfortunately.)

Anyway,  it is much easier to write for one platform and not compile it
for other platforms (since C is supposed to be multiplatform blah blah
blah...) which highly suggests programmer companies were content to be
lazy (sorry) bastards and write for Windows only, meaning anyone wanting
to use OS/2 or whatever else was stuck in the cold and HAD to go Windows
in order to use an application they needed.  In other words, is
Microsoft the ONLY villain in the grand scheme of things?  I highly
doubt it.

On the other hand, if Microsoft is clearly proven to be coercing *every*
if not a majority of software developers to write exclusively for
Windows then Microsoft is 100% guilty of perverting the theory of
capitalism.

As I said, if you ask me, Microsoft ain't the only guilty party in
town.  Software companies equally spread the false ideal of 'standard'
and effectively coerced consumers to buy one product line if they wanted
to do what they needed to do.  (hey, that Caligari software made for the
Amiga in 1990 can only go so far when their new trueSpace v4 for the PC
kicks arse featurewise and speedwise.  They're not supporting Amiga
anymore and they've just about done all but proudly stated they stopped
supporting the Amiga.)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          28-Nov-99 08:13:16
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 10:27:19
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>> [e-mail]
>> SHHHHHH! Don't tell William this. If he were to suddenly get a clue, and
>> actually avail himself of the services of all of those VARs, that would
>> deprive the larger VARs of their suckers.... er... customers like
>> William who stupidly buys items that he doesn't even want whereas we
>> receive and pay for only that which we desire

>Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
>You lemmings sure cannot read.

And you can't seem to get that kill-filter figured out numerous days
after you claimed to have already set it up. And you expect us to
believe that you setup and maintain computers? Riiiiiiiiight.
Suuuuuuure. Yep. We believe it.

>As I have explained at least four times,
>when bidding for large corporate or public body purchases, the bid
>specifications require name brand hardware in many instances. Those for
>public agencies most frequently require any substitution for the named
>brand or brands be from companies with D&B ratings, minimum net worth,
>etc. They also require that the hardware be accompanied by a
>MANUFACTURER's warranty.

And yet they hire a no-name local guy to setup and maintain this
equipment, instead of utilizing IBM's own services for IBM equipment.
Yep. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Uh huh.

>The bids frequently require a contract from a national service company
>such as XEROX, IBM, Compaq, etc. which will provide on-site service for 2,
>3 or even longer years. These companies will not touch locally assembled
>machines.

And yet, they've waived any on-site service when it comes to setup and
maintainence of those computers, and instead have hired a no-name
local guy who can't even come close to filling those financial
requirements, rather than hire IBM's professional services for IBM
equipment. Suuuuuuuuuuuure. We believe that. <wink, wink>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          28-Nov-99 08:14:29
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 10:27:19
Subj: Re: I am worried about our future generations...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>[e-mail]
>Joe,
>Remain childless.

No one would want to adopt you anyway

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          28-Nov-99 08:23:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 10:27:19
Subj: Re: I'm Sorry

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>[e-mail] (OfNoMatter)
>I'm sorry for what I did to you.

Is this a plea directed to OS/2 Advocates from an ex-IBM manager in
charge of OS2?

My guess is that it isn't. Usually, IBM managers tell OS/2 Advocates
to sod off (and OS/2 Advocates thank IBM for doing so, and then rush
off to help sell more IBM products)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                  28-Nov-99 10:41:25
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 10:27:19
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <SM304.32369$[e-mail]>, Brent Davies
wrote:
>
>Solaris has become somewhat nebulous since the release of its source.

That hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

--
 Ben

[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
    order your software package for $459.95!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Firedrake Synthesis (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 11:35:00
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 10:27:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <81q15e$bbb$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>> ....and again.
>
> >> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >....and again.
>
> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

...and again.

The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 08:39:13
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:

> Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
> much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
> Now I'm A+ certified and well-versed with many operating systems and I
> even know a bit about the Mac since I am unfortunate enough to have to
> work with them at times.
>
> But the Mac still astounds me with its leaps of illogical,
> style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
> innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
> detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
> inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...
>
> Despite the amount of bitching I do against IBM (and the ocassional
> missile aimed at OS/2 itself), OS/2 still has a a shitload more going
> for it than the Crapintosh ever technically will and I still have to aim
> another missile at IBM wondering how they couldn't get OS/2 to sell.
> What really went wrong?  IBM got their PC from 1980, a real piece of
> shit motivated by their name and nothing more, to sell, so why not
> OS/2?  Did people decide that OS/2 was meant for PS/2 (which also came
> out at a similar time) and nothing more?  People used OS/2 with the ATM
> boxes (and didn't know or care any better since OS/2 was not advertised
> and people were only doing one task, hence the SIQ never blew up on
> them.)
>
> I genuinely feel sorry for the situation.  IBM is still responsible for
> most of it, but I despise seeing technologically superior things be
> shoved on the wayside in favor of pure trash (anything from Apple.)
>
> Apple is still having an orgasm over a pathetic case design.  Sorry, but
> a translucent blue case (inspired by a german brand iron) is nothing
> when the OS is incredibly finicky and unstable.  And with luck the
> illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt.  They deserve
> it.

Are you an idiot ? Regardless of how you feel about the macintosh ( and
most of us dont give a damn), apple continues to sell their product
consistently.  You'll probably find that OSX will fix many of the
shortcomings of the OS.

And let me remind you that OS/2 shortcomings, and there are many will never
be fixed. The products dead. IBM's bailed, you should too. Save your money,
don't give it to IBM. If you OS/2 users really insist on throwing it away
then send it to me. Ill give you my address.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 08:51:29
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Okay, here is an interesting POV re: Microsoft and lawsuits

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:

> Well, I was an avid OS/2 user until Feb 1997.  Forget the reasons why
> but I turned to Windows NT as it had the most up-to-date and reliable
> applications available.
>
> Personally, despite OS/2's bugs, I was willing to continue using it at
> the time since I had pumped shitloads of money into hardware and
> software which were claimed* to be OS/2 friendly (half the hardware
> wasn't despite allegations to the contrary.)
>
> Anyway, I switched to Windows NT (I now use 98 since although
> multitasking is even worse, display and animations are MUCH faster.
> Multitasking isn't much of an issue any longer although I can still tell
> the difference between even Windows95 and MacOS 9 in terms of preemptive
> multitasking!  Ouch!)
>
> Now if programmers weren't terrorized by Microsoft or allowed to write
> for non-Windows platforms of their own free will instead of MS coercing
> them to write for Windows only, do I get a big chunk of money from MS
> because they controlled the programmers who write the applications which
> make computers useful in the first place and therefore compelled me to
> go Wintel or otherwise sit in a desert?
>
> See, that's my problem.  If Microsoft had NOTHING to do with coercing
> programming companies to write for Windows only, then Microsoft is
> hardly guilty of being a monopoly since it is the APPLICATION DEVELOPERS
> who are too (sorry) fucking lazy to support free choice in operating
> systems or platforms.  (gee, why else did the Crapintosh and Amiga lose
> face and die out?  Somebody somewhere was telling everybody to buy a PC
> with DOS/Windows on it.  It wasn't me, I proudly was an Amiga advocate
> at the time (1990-1995, even after Commodore snuffed it and I felt
> compelled to get a PC and chuck OS/2 on it because of the prettier
> interface.)  Well, the Crapintosh is worse than dead, it's alive...
> Apple still exists, unfortunately.)
>
> Anyway,  it is much easier to write for one platform and not compile it
> for other platforms (since C is supposed to be multiplatform blah blah
> blah...) which highly suggests programmer companies were content to be
> lazy (sorry) bastards and write for Windows only, meaning anyone wanting
> to use OS/2 or whatever else was stuck in the cold and HAD to go Windows
> in order to use an application they needed.  In other words, is
> Microsoft the ONLY villain in the grand scheme of things?  I highly
> doubt it.
>
> On the other hand, if Microsoft is clearly proven to be coercing *every*
> if not a majority of software developers to write exclusively for
> Windows then Microsoft is 100% guilty of perverting the theory of
> capitalism.
>
> As I said, if you ask me, Microsoft ain't the only guilty party in
> town.  Software companies equally spread the false ideal of 'standard'
> and effectively coerced consumers to buy one product line if they wanted
> to do what they needed to do.  (hey, that Caligari software made for the
> Amiga in 1990 can only go so far when their new trueSpace v4 for the PC
> kicks arse featurewise and speedwise.  They're not supporting Amiga
> anymore and they've just about done all but proudly stated they stopped
> supporting the Amiga.)

Clearly, you have no idea how to program in C or a clue as to how much work
it is to develop software.

Do you have a job ? Apparently not. Im guessing you spend most of your time
staring at os/2 and wondering what could have been. Well, its pretty simple
Kelly. Let me explain.

Programmers have to eat. To eat they need to make money. To make money they
need to sell software. Get it. OS/2 is not part of this equation. You can
cry about it all day long, but facts is facts. OS/2 is done. Development is
over, you'll have to pay for updates, no more refreshes, no new
software.......etc....etc...etc.....





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 09:00:05
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Okay, here is an interesting POV re: Microsoft and lawsuits

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

>
> Clearly, you have no idea how to program in C or a clue as to how much work
> it is to develop software.
>
> Do you have a job ? Apparently not. Im guessing you spend most of your time
> staring at os/2 and wondering what could have been. Well, its pretty simple
> Kelly. Let me explain.
>
> Programmers have to eat. To eat they need to make money. To make money they
> need to sell software. Get it. OS/2 is not part of this equation. You can
> cry about it all day long, but facts is facts. OS/2 is done. Development is
> over, you'll have to pay for updates, no more refreshes, no new
> software.......etc....etc...etc.....

My apolgies for the os/2 bit kelly. Apparently I didnt realize that you'd
given up on it some time ago.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                 28-Nov-99 10:04:23
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]>

This came out a bit long, but it wound up being rather
interesting, I think. If you want to know why 'Carbon' is
necessary, read on...

"John Warwick" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <81plqk$o8s$[e-mail]>, "Daniel Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
[snip]
> > I program, and I have copies of the docs for both.
> >
> > And they are different. Very different.
>
> [huge snip of documented "differences"]

Scare quotes?

> > Anyway, you can see why I find these claims of Microsoft absconding with
> > MacOS source code to be a little far-fetched. They seem to have learned
> > from the MacOS APIs, in the sense of seeing what went wrong when they
> > were put to use, but I can't accept that they reused MacOS code.
>
> Clearly, you are heads, hands and feet, a better more knowledgable
> programmer than I. In fact, I wouldn't call myself a programmer at all
> as I just dabble... however...
>
> I would *expect* QuickDraw to differ from MS graphics routines as QD
> represented the Mac crown jewels for many years. They probably could
> have been sued into the dirt for copying that.

They can be sued for copying *any* part of MacOS, and in fact *were sued*
for copying part of QuickTime. And lost, too, IIRC.

> Plus, I was not trying to imply that MS copied source code, but rather
> that many of the Win32 routines have extremely similar, identical in
> some cases, names and functions.

I don't agree. I'd like some examples of the similarity; I'd have to argue
that they are chiefly similar in that they are in English. Thus both have
"MoveTo" to move the pen; but the Win32 version is semantically different
in several ways.

> I have very limited exposure to Win32,
> but what I have seen "looks" like a rip from the Mac toolbox. Pascal
> naming conventions even...

Pascal has naming conventions? :D

Both MacOS and Win32 use full English words with
TheLeadingCapitalsWordSeparationConvention, instead
of the_underscode_word_separation_convention or
thnvwlsndrntgthrcnvntn (the no vowels and run together
convention); there is no decoration of function call identifiers.

The similarity ends there. MacOS and Win32 *both* have
naming conventions for parameters, variables, and data
types, but they differ. Win32's is a weird bastardized hungarian
notation, and data types are in all caps. MacOS does its
own thing. Compare:

Var theExcludedRgn : RgnHandle; (* MacOS *)
Var theMainWindow : WindowPtr; (* MacOS *)

HRGN hrgnExcluded; /* Win32 */
HWND hwndMain; /* Win32 */

> and since the Mac toolbox greatly predates
> Win32 API's - I'd say the Mac toolbox was the model.

I'm sure it did influence them, but...

> I think your last sentence says the same thing I'm saying - "They seem
> to have learned from the MacOS API's...".

As the rest of that sentence said, they learned what *not* to do from
the MacOS APIs, more or less. :D

There *are* some things that look similar in isolation:

LineTo(10,10);  (* MacOs *)
LineTo(hdc,10,10);  /* Win32 */

But I'd write it off to the fact that they do similar things (move
the pen of the current GrafPort or the device context hdc). An
only slightly longer sample will show differences.

This code will draw a line from (10,0) to (10,10); in MacOS it
uses the line size and color that happened to already be
selected in the port, and the Windows we use the defaults
for a new device context (which is black, 1 pixel by 1 pixel)

(* MacOS *)
SetPort(theWindow);
MoveTo(10,0);
LineTo(10,10);

/* Win32 */
HDC hdc=GetDC(hwnd);
MoveTo(hdc,10,0);
LineTo(hdc,10,10);
ReleaseDC(hwnd,hdc);

I chose this example because its very similar between the two
systems; it does show a big API difference: Mac apps set a global
"current port" (read: window), then all drawing is done to it. Win32
apps pass a device context to each function, which they get via
an API; the context is not identical to the window.

Here is a very illustrative (thought long) example. This code draws a blue
rectangle with a 1x1 pixel black border in a window. The rectangle is
inset 5 pixels from each edge of the window.

I chose this example because the APIs are rather different
here.

(* MacOS *)
Procedure Example(theWindow : WindowPtr)
Var blueColor,blackColor : RGBColor;
Var theBorder : Rect;
Begin
  blueColor.red:=0;
  blueColor.green:=0;
  blueColor.blue:=65535;
  blackColor .red:=0;
  blackColor .green:=0;
  blackColor .blue:=0;

  theBorder:=theWindow^.port.portRect;
  OffsetRect(theBorder,-theBorder.left,-theBorder.top);
  InsetRect(theBorder,5,5);

  SetPort(theWindow);
  RGBForeColor(blueColor);
  PaintRect(theBorder);
  RGBForeColor(black);
  FrameRect(theBorder);
End;

The MacOS example illustrates how the Mac API simplifies drawing code- and
at what cost. The six lines at the top assign a color specification to
variables; a simple helper function could eliminate this bit, but the API
does not include it, so you must roll it yourself.

The next thing it does is to retrieve the borders of the window; this must
be done by *directly accessing* the window's record. This is horrid; you
can't implement pre-emptive multitasking or multithreading if apps can
directly read data from OS structures without using any synchronization
at all. If another task needed to move the window, it would not be able to
tell if it was safe to do so, because an app (like this one) can just jump
in there and start reading without preamble. Carbon is supposed to fix
this.

Amusingly, while Win16 always forbade this kind of direct access to
OS structures, some apps did it anyway. This is why Win16 apps are so
poorly multitasked in Windows 95: They cannot be pre-empted, just in case
they are doing this kind of thing.

Inside Macintosh is not entirely clear whether the portRect we are fetching
needs to be adjusted to match the local co-ordinate system, but it allows
that it may be needed, so we'd better do it.

Notice that we set the current port with SetPort(); after this all our
drawing operations affect this window. This forecloses on the possibility of
doing pre-emptive multithreaded drawing, since we can't affort to have
somebody else drawing in there and changing the windows current color
while we work. It also means that we are using whatever colors and settings
were left behind by the last fellow to draw in this window. This code
casually assumes that this is okay, and will break if it isn't. Nasty.

After that, though, its very simple. We set the foreground color, fill in
the rectangle, change the foreground color, and draw the frame. Simplicitly
itself. We need do no cleanup after that- we'll just leave the foreground
color black for that window and leave the current port as it is. Hopefully
no other procedure was assuming that the window's foreground color was
something else; we could have saved and restored it, but this isn't mandated
and it may not be needed- its up to your app to work that out.

/* Win32 */
void Example(HWND hwnd)
{
  RECT rectBorder;
  GetClientRect(hwnd,&rectBorder);
  InflateRect(&rectBorder,-5,-5);

  HDC hdc=GetDC(hwnd);
  COLORREF crBlue=GetNearestColor(hdc,RGB(0,0,0xFF));
  HBRUSH hbrBlue=CreateSolidBrush(crBlue);
  HBRUSH hbrOld=SelectObject(hdc,hbr);

  Rectangle(hdc,rectBorder.left,rectBorder.top,
            rectBorder.right,rectBorder.bottom);

  SelectObject(hdc,hbrOld);
  DeleteObject(hbr);
  ReleaseDC(hwnd,hdc);
}

It looks just as long, but that's only because in Win32 we have the RGB()
macro to save us space creating color descriptions. An equivalent could be
written if you needed it for MacOS.

In Win32 we have an API to extract the window's borders safely, and in the
right co-ordinate system to boot. But we have more housekeeping: We must
create a 'device context' (HDC) and a 'brush' (HBRUSH). These allow safe
multithreaded drawing- *only* this function uses the device context and
brush it creates, so other threads drawing with their own will not disturb
us. Also, our device context is given to us in a 'reset' state, so we know
that it has the default pen, brush, et al.

But then things start getting a bit more complex.

We wish to fill in the rectangle with *solid* blue, and this is a shade
problematic. In Win32, objects like an HBRUSH describe what you want- not
what you get. We are asking for a solid blue rectangle, but we'll get a
*dithered* blue rectangle if that's what Win32 must do to get its best
match.

So CreateSolidBrush doesn't *really* create a solid brush- it creates a
polite request for a solid brush that Windows feels free to ignore. This
kind of this is more useful with fonts than with colors, but this kind of
'best approximate' thing was needed waaay back when with EGA, or
even crappy 4 bit SVGA.

Still, this is not what we want, so we use GetNearestColor() to find the
nearest color that we can render exactly, and we use that. This step is
unnecessary on the MacOS, since it has "draw solid color" primitives
like FillRect, that Win32 has not got. (Win32's has a FillRect routine, but
it does the dithering thing. A good example of the "same name, different
semantics" issue)

We also have to save the brush that came with our new device context, and
then restore it when we are done. Of course we also have to destroy the
brush and device context when we are done. All of these steps are
*explicitly mandated* by Win32; I am not just being anal, you have to do
all of this.

Interestingly, MacOS also has a 'dithered brush' capability, using
MakeRGBPat. The housekeeping requirements of this are similar
to what you have to do with Win32.

We just use the default pen, which gives us our 1 pixel black border with no
housekeeping. Otherwise we'd be doing the same thing wiith an HPEN.

The call to Rectangle() both fills and frames the rectangle. We have to
split the RECT up into four parameters (one for each side)- an annoyance
that is all too common in Win32.

A bit long, but an informative example: It shows both APIs at their worst-
a MacOS program  interfering with the OS internals for elementary
operations, and a Win32 program that has so much housekeeping to do,
it needs maid service.

It also illustrates why Apple has had such problems getting modern
features into MacOS, and it shows what Unix programers are
complaining about when they say that Win32 is too complex and too
ugly.







--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           28-Nov-99 10:12:16
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <QU304.32376$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 06:24
AM,
   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:

> So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
> www.microsoft.com lately?

According to Microsoft's website and the quarterly CD, Win 9x can only be
made Y2K compliant with "consierations" . This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable
to me and most of my clients.

An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
little bit pregnant. Can't be.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           28-Nov-99 10:17:06
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 08:13 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:


> And you can't seem to get that kill-filter figured out numerous days
> after you claimed to have already set it up. And you expect us to
> believe that you setup and maintain computers? Riiiiiiiiight.
> Suuuuuuure. Yep. We believe it.

I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
machines.

I leave that to illigitimate anal retentives like you.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           28-Nov-99 10:18:27
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 08:39 AM,
   Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]> said:

> And let me remind you that OS/2 shortcomings, and there are many will
> never be fixed. The products dead. IBM's bailed, you should too. Save
> your money, don't give it to IBM. If you OS/2 users really insist on
> throwing it away then send it to me. Ill give you my address.

You really are a hole, an asshole.

IBM continues to issue updates and new features for Warp and has extended
its commitment to do so for four more years. IBM has just released a new
version of the Warp Server which is selling very well.

Haven't you heard that Bill's not paying you lemmings to spread lies
anymore?

Have your mommy explain what FixPacks and Subscriptions are if you can
find the test tube which spawned you.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 15:25:12
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (Holger Veit)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:12:33 -0500, Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>On <QU304.32376$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 06:24
>AM,
>   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>> So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
>> www.microsoft.com lately?
>
>According to Microsoft's website and the quarterly CD, Win 9x can only be
>made Y2K compliant with "consierations" . This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable
>to me and most of my clients.
>
>An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
>non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
>little bit pregnant. Can't be.

Apparently M$ has managed to make partial pregnancy possible...
(product half running after 9 months).

Holger
--
If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: GMD-AiS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           28-Nov-99 10:23:15
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/27/99 at 11:30 PM,
   [e-mail] said:

> This has always been my suspicion.  IBM just didn't seem to really try
> very hard shortly after Warp 3 Connect.  I always heard that IBM didn't
> see any money in the kitchentop PC OS market but if that was the case
> then why didn't they just  drop it cold turkey as they do with all their
> other products which seem to have no future.  Instead it seems like they
> just went through the motions with no intent of making OS/2 a  success.

IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
PC as a BUSINESS tool.

You obviously have no knowledge of the software subscription services, the
technical support services, etc. IBM offers to OS/2users.

Idiot savants who will pay $40 or more several times a year for the latest
games that have a half-life of something less than a couple of months were
unwilling to pay for technical support when the screwed up their
Presentation Manager screen.

Simpletons who buy several joystick type devices at costs of upwards of
$30 each year to keep up with the latest games cannot understand that $100
a year to keep their OS current is cheap.

Mental midgets who complain that $100 a year is too much for added
features, new device drivers, new capabilities, etc. don't mind paying
just about as much to M$ for new versions of Windows every couple of years
when one considers that one also has to upgrade OfficeSour each time for
an additional $100 or so.

IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
professionals.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                 28-Nov-99 10:34:10
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:384146dc$2$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <QU304.32376$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 06:24
> AM,
>    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
> > www.microsoft.com lately?
>
> According to Microsoft's website and the quarterly CD, Win 9x can only be
> made Y2K compliant with "consierations" . This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable
> to me and most of my clients.
>
> An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
> little bit pregnant. Can't be.

Microsofts website claims that Windows 95 is fully compliant, once
you install two updates that may be downloaded for free from
http://www.microsoft.com

If you use Internet Explorer 4, you need to upgrade to version 4.01 as well.

Are you sure you haven't confused Windows 95 for Windows 3? MS's
website *does* list Windows 3.1 as being "compliant with issues".

In this case, the issues are that its bits tricky to set the current date to
a date after 2000. The command line requires 4 digit years, period. The
GUI front end cannot set the date to Feb 29, 2000 with the mouse. You
can do it with the keyboard.

Windows 3 and Windows 95 are also vulernable to hardware RTCs
that fail to rollover at all, where as Windows 98 and Windows NT work
around these problems automatically. Some BIOSes do this as well.

This is strictly speaking a bug in the RTC, not in Windows, and may
be worked around by manually setting the date once a century.








--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                28-Nov-99 10:37:12
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <81q10l$bal$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> >> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
>
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                28-Nov-99 15:39:09
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:54:16, [e-mail] (sheldon) wrote:

ΩJoseph <[e-mail]> writes:
█
Ω>Chad Mulligan wrote:
█
Ω>> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
Ω>> news:[e-mail]...
Ω>> > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke... There
Ω>> really
Ω>> > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at first
Ω>> > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the case
Ω>> for
Ω>> > Win98 SE...
Ω>> >
Ω>>
Ω>> Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with the
Ω>> service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the user.
█
Ω>Substantial changes -- if one is a lawyer.  Integrating IE into the OS took
a
Ω>lot of work and delayed the OS.  It also reduced performance and
reliability.
█
Ω Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.
█
Ω Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.
█
Ω I think you need to pay more attention.

Big difference from bundling to "integrating"; now you can't get rid
of whether you want to or not.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 08:04:17
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


sheldon wrote:

> Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> >Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> >> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >> news:[e-mail]...
> >> > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke... There
> >> really
> >> > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at
first
> >> > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the case
> >> for
> >> > Win98 SE...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with the
> >> service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the user.
>
> >Substantial changes -- if one is a lawyer.  Integrating IE into the OS took
a
> >lot of work and delayed the OS.  It also reduced performance and
reliability.
>
>  Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.

Well the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 was modest EXCEPT for the IE integration,
purposely weaving it into the OS.  Win98 to Win98 SE is "substantial" is the
definition is "True or real; not imaginary"  More commonly substantial  means
"Considerable in importance"  In that case, absolutely not.

        1.Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
        2.True or real; not imaginary.
        3.Solidly built; strong.
        4.Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.
        5.Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by
a
          substantial margin.
        6.Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

>
>  Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.

IE v1.0 was written by spyglass and the edition that was shipped with Win95.
Even
Win95 OSR2, IE  wasn't engineered into the OS.  Win98 was the 1st edition in
which
IE was integrated into the OS.  Win98SE was as substantial as a incremental
service pack.

>  I think you need to pay more attention.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Nov-99 16:11:03
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
>
> .... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
> >between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
>
>     What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
because it's obvious that you should comply to the opinion those
people have of Dave Tholen. Whatever you do, *don't* tell them you
want to find out for yourself, and *never* let it become public
knowledge that you've had an interesting and entertaining dialog with
Dave Tholen. It may not be nice to Dave, but it will make your
net-life a lot easier...

>     And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
> Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
> petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
> least a port of the Workspace Shell.
>
There's XFreeOS/2, which will let you run (recompiled) X-programs in
OS/2. Not (yet) in a window though, XOS/2 takes over your desktop full
screen. IIRC, information can be exchanged with native OS/2 apps.

The EMX libraries make it relatively simple (for those who program,
that is) to recompile certain X programs for the WPS. I have the
Ghostscript/Ghostview combo nicely running on my system.

The OS/2 Netlabs have a project called "Everblue", aimed at a more
seamless integration of X and WPS ( http://www.netlabs.org/everblue/
). They recently released the first public beta (more a showcase than
a useful tool, but amazing given the timeframe they managed to get it
out in).

The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
myself yet.

>     I mention Linux because that seems to be succeeding where OS/2
> has failed. I don't mean to pick on you OS/2 lovers out there, but IBM
> seems to be content to let it slowly go the way of the Amiga.
>
You're not offending us. We've been hearing that story on a _very_
regular basis for the last... oh, say eight years or so. We get used
to it.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 08:37:02
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-28-99, 3:39:19 PM, [e-mail] (Jack
Troughton) wrote regarding Re: BeOS compared to Windows... (was Re:
Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!):


> On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:54:16, [e-mail] (sheldon) wrote:

> <?ANSI(219)>Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
> <?ANSI(219)>
> <?ANSI(219)>>Chad Mulligan wrote:
> <?ANSI(219)>
> <?ANSI(219)>
> <?ANSI(219)> Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.
> <?ANSI(219)>
> <?ANSI(219)> I think you need to pay more attention.

> Big difference from bundling to "integrating"; now you can't get rid
> of whether you want to or not.

Windows peaked with Windows95  OSR2.  Subsequent editions are lawyer
engineered.  Benefits of integration are: Windows98  runs slower, is
less reliable and has significant security holes. Windows98  SE is a
incremental servicepack to Windows98 .

I have maintained a Windows95  OSR2 edition and forbid any IE update.
I have tried updating IE and the new IE changed DLLs and the splash
screen to Windows95 /IE so some lawyer can say IE was always
integrated in the OS.  I erased the OS and reinstalled - IE is now
disabled, Outlook is now disabled.

Windows98  is a disaster.  The UI and tool bars are very confusing and
the IE integration screwed it up and gained MS's lawyers little
benefit in their court case.

OS/2 stable UI and fixpacks contrast to the confusing and self-serving
changes MS makes to their Oss to protect the monopoly from the "threat
of the month."



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      28-Nov-99 08:50:14
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> sheldon wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> > >Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > >> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[e-mail]...
> > >> > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke...
There
> > >> really
> > >> > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at
first
> > >> > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the
case
> > >> for
> > >> > Win98 SE...
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with
the
> > >> service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the
user.
> >
> > >Substantial changes -- if one is a lawyer.  Integrating IE into the OS
took a
> > >lot of work and delayed the OS.  It also reduced performance and
reliability.
> >
> >  Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.
>
> Well the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 was modest EXCEPT for the IE
integration,
> purposely weaving it into the OS.  Win98 to Win98 SE is "substantial" is
the
> definition is "True or real; not imaginary"  More commonly substantial
means
> "Considerable in importance"  In that case, absolutely not.
>
>         1.Of, relating to, or having substance; material.

OK got that one.

>         2.True or real; not imaginary.

It does exist.

>         3.Solidly built; strong.

It can't lift much.

>         4.Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.

Tastes rather bland.

>         5.Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent:
won by a
>           substantial margin.

Bingo,  This update corrects, and combines all the fixes and improvements
developed since the release of Win98, including the security issues, it does
improve filesystem performance.  Corrects some minor Dial up Networking
issues and all the Y2K fixes, both packs.

>         6.Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

It didn't have any money.

>
> >
> >  Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.
>
> IE v1.0 was written by spyglass and the edition that was shipped with
Win95.  Even
> Win95 OSR2, IE  wasn't engineered into the OS.  Win98 was the 1st edition
in which
> IE was integrated into the OS.  Win98SE was as substantial as a
incremental
> service pack.
>

Installing IE4 with desktop update and browser enhancements on 95 is exactly
the same level of integration as the preinstalled version on 98.

Win98SE is a Service Pack.

> >  I think you need to pay more attention.
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   28-Nov-99 12:04:01
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]>

You must have misread my post. You cannot upgrade Win98 to Win98 SE with a
full version CD. It won't let you...I've tried. You can upgrade from Win95
or 3.1 to 98 SE, but 98 to 98 SE from the full version CD.

--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH

CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?

"Joe Adam" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:0%104.5458$[e-mail]...
>
> > > Interestingly, you can't upgrade Win98 to Win98 SE with a full version
> CD
> > > without a tedious clean install. You can upgrade any version of Mac
OS,
> > from  really outdated stuff to OS 8.6 with OS 9 CD or perform clean
> installs...
> > >
> Sure you can, there are several ways to install it.... I routinely
> re-install Windows SE (Upgrade CD) on a newly formatted drive... No use
> having all that other mess on there.  I do own Full versions of 95 and 98
so
> I can install it anyway I want...
>
>
> Joe
>
>
> --
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> www.CyberMedics.Net!
> Web Hosting for Less!
> 1-800-813-8224
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   28-Nov-99 12:05:28
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]>

The integration of IE into the OS happened in Win98, not Win98 SE. The
changes from Win98 to Win98 SE are mimimal...

--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH

CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?

"Joseph" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> > Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke... There
> > really
> > > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at
first
> > > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the
case
> > for
> > > Win98 SE...
> > >
> >
> > Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with the
> > service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the user.
>
> Substantial changes -- if one is a lawyer.  Integrating IE into the OS
took a
> lot of work and delayed the OS.  It also reduced performance and
reliability.
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   28-Nov-99 12:11:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]>

> Bingo,  This update corrects, and combines all the fixes and improvements
> developed since the release of Win98, including the security issues, it
does
> improve filesystem performance.  Corrects some minor Dial up Networking
> issues and all the Y2K fixes, both packs.

I believe that all this is available from the Windows Update page for Win98
users, so there isn't really a difference is there? Win98 SE seems to be an
updated Win98 with all the service packs and upgrades installed already, and
a few thousand more bugs thrown in for good measure.

> Win98SE is a Service Pack.

Then why are they charging at all? My Visual Studio service packs don't cost
me anything...

--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH

CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   28-Nov-99 12:08:07
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 14:37:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]>

I disagree... Win98 packed more utilities, most importantly - scanreg. There
is some substance in the Win98 upgrade. Now that I've been used to Win98, I
hate getting on a machine using Win95. It's that noticable to me. Now,
jumping from Win98 SE to Win98, I can't tell the difference. Not a single
utility is different. Not a single new feature that I can see...

--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH

CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?

"Joseph" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> sheldon wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> > >Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > >> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[e-mail]...
> > >> > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke...
There
> > >> really
> > >> > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at
first
> > >> > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the
case
> > >> for
> > >> > Win98 SE...
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with
the
> > >> service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the
user.
> >
> > >Substantial changes -- if one is a lawyer.  Integrating IE into the OS
took a
> > >lot of work and delayed the OS.  It also reduced performance and
reliability.
> >
> >  Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.
>
> Well the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 was modest EXCEPT for the IE
integration,
> purposely weaving it into the OS.  Win98 to Win98 SE is "substantial" is
the
> definition is "True or real; not imaginary"  More commonly substantial
means
> "Considerable in importance"  In that case, absolutely not.
>
>         1.Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
>         2.True or real; not imaginary.
>         3.Solidly built; strong.
>         4.Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.
>         5.Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent:
won by a
>           substantial margin.
>         6.Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.
>
> >
> >  Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.
>
> IE v1.0 was written by spyglass and the edition that was shipped with
Win95.  Even
> Win95 OSR2, IE  wasn't engineered into the OS.  Win98 was the 1st edition
in which
> IE was integrated into the OS.  Win98SE was as substantial as a
incremental
> service pack.
>
> >  I think you need to pay more attention.
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 17:46:15
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-iCnL08dE2LI6@localhost>,
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:

>>     What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...

    Is he that much of a jerk?

    [On integrating X-windows and OS/2...]

>The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
>to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
>http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
>myself yet.

    Interesting.
--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 12:51:19
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 28 Nov 1999 17:46:31 GMT, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich) chose
to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-iCnL08dE2LI6@localhost>,
>Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
>>wrote:
>
>>>     What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>>You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>
>    Is he that much of a jerk?

Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>    [On integrating X-windows and OS/2...]
>
>>The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
>>to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
>>http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
>>myself yet.
>
>    Interesting.

"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 17:59:20
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail]

In <VG304.32361$[e-mail]>, "Brent Davies"
<[e-mail]> writes:
|
|Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
|news:81o62o$kd3$[e-mail]...
||
|[snip]
|| >
|| > Well, the mistake is thinking that people are really more efficient
|| > using something other than a VT100. For lots of office work, this
|| > probably isn't true <g>.
|| >
||
|| Actually, my experience is that it is true. Remember that while running
|| windows the VT session is still available, with the added benefit of being
|| able to cut and paste from the screen to other applications, not something
|| that is usually available on a simple serial connection.
|
|There are few corporate uses for VTs.    The most common that I have
|experienced is database access (data entry/retrieval).  I have yet to see
|someone create marketing docs, do video or image creation, manager
|their own time (as an excutive would), or conduct market research
|through a terminal session.  Besides that, it would be a drag on
|productivity in most of the environments in which I have worked.
|
|I hear a lot of "limit what the user can do" arguments from the Unix
|community, but I've also had the pleasure of speaking with a
|Silicon Valley CEO about how he keeps his employees in their
|jobs.    He absolutely refuses to restrict the computing environment
|of his employees what-so-ever.  "A happy employee is a productive
|employee", and this particular CEO took that VERY seriously.
|
|So why again should I restrict my users to a VT and only that
|software that a mainframe could serve them?
|
|-B

First, VT's do not connect to mainframes; and, if you think that what
they _do_ connect to _is_ a mainframe, you need to get out more.

Second, if you think you cannot manage your own time without a GUI,
you just aren't thinking. Ever heard of PROFS? You may not like it;
but, it has managed schedules for people for longer than there have
been GUI's. Judging from you comments on what you have not seen dumb
terminals do, I reiterate my advice that you get out more.

Third, I'll wager that CEO's IT staff does not agree with him; since,
in my experience, users are happiest with things that work reliably
and consistently. Allowing your user community to run anything they
please may put a smile on their faces; but, it won't work unless you
also refuse to support those smiling faces. I can run any OS I please;
but, only a handful get support from corporate IT.

OTOH, maybe you download all your 'productivity' software from AOL...

regards,

Guido

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 18:01:03
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: I'm Sorry

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)
writes:

Yes Jeff, you certainly are...



Best regards for a swift recovery,

Guido

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 18:15:15
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Frederic Marchand <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
>

(snip MacOS/Windows bullshit)

> Installing IE4 with desktop update and browser enhancements on 95 is exactly
> the same level of integration as the preinstalled version on 98.
>
> Win98SE is a Service Pack.

  That's fantastic but :

1 - it doesn't have anything to do with the subject (BeOS/Windows)
2 - it doesn't concern anymore neither BeOS or OS/2.

  THANK YOU _NOT_ TO INCLUDE TO THE *Be* ADVOCACY FORUM IN YOUR REPLIES
ANYMORE

--
 Frederic Marchand
 BeOS Developer E-14363
 http://fmarchand.free.fr/

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Guest of ProXad - France (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 18:18:23
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <38414a9e$5$obot$[e-mail]>,
Bob Germer  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
>decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
>of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
>tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
>PC as a BUSINESS tool. ...

>IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
>professionals.

    That's all well and good, but looking from the outside, it's not
clear what the real advantages of OS/2 might be; what does it have that
Linux, for example, does not have? A better GUI, perhaps, and stuff like
the Workplace Shell.

    And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?

    This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
order to get Win32 support.

--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 18:36:21
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Christopher J Houle  <[e-mail]> wrote:

[Attacks on the MacOS]

>Are you an idiot ? Regardless of how you feel about the macintosh ( and
>most of us dont give a damn), apple continues to sell their product
>consistently.  You'll probably find that OSX will fix many of the
>shortcomings of the OS.

    And improve it. The MacOS's improvements over the past few years
have mainly been in improving stability and in the bells-and-whistles
department, but Apple has also released its long-promised MacOS X Server,
and its mass-market edition seems to be coming along very well
(www.xappeal.org, www.macosrumors.com). At least Apple is not letting the
MacOS go the way of OS/2 and the Amiga, though it might have seemed to
start that a few years ago.

>And let me remind you that OS/2 shortcomings, and there are many will never
>be fixed. The products dead. ...

    That may be an overstatement, but IBM does not seem to be taking
OS/2 anywhere, and it's not clear how much more it has to offer than
(say) Linux.

--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 19:48:19
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> :

> You really are a hole, an asshole.
Looks like ive struck a nerve, eh booby. You may feel real tough calling me
an asshole online, but I doubt you'd be saying it to me face to face.  But,
hey, if makes you feel tough and your dick somehow seem bigger than by all
means keep right on blasting me. Your too easy.

 IBM continues to issue updates and new features for Warp
As for OS/2, let IBM's commitment to the future of the product speak for
itself.

IBM has just released a new version of the Warp Server
Ask yourself just what in the hell a new server version of the OS is good for
back at home on your desktop. Smarten up booby. The phoenix will not arise
from the ashes. IBM's not going to ever support a new client version, the
fixpacks will end, you will (foolishly) pay for subscriptions/updates to an
everbecoming obsolete product. Its inevitable, it cant be avoided. Its only a
question of when. IBM doesn't want you boob. You've got your head shoved so
far up your ass you dont whether to shit or blind.


> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ
Question:

If two people from Mt Holley, NJ move to NYC and get a divorce are they still
brother and sister ?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                26-Nov-99 21:00:05
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "LP" <[e-mail]>

Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Funny, I can wipe my system clean and install the full OS 9. That's a full
> version my friend.
>
> They are all called updates because every Mac system has a Mac OS already.
> You cannot build your own nor buy a non-Apple Mac. Therefore, you have to
> have an earlier OS version one way or another.

Um.. whether or not a software license is an "upgrade" or a "full retail" or
an "OEM" version has no bearing upon whether or not you can do a clean
install. In fact, the vast majority of upgrades allow a clean install.

And yes, you make my point. You have already paid for the license to the
MacOS.. and are just buying the upgrade. That is the $95 Win98 SE cost for
owners of Win95 and earlier... or $19.95 for owners of Win98.



> --
> Ruel Smith
> Cincinnati, OH
>
> CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > Funny, the full version of OS 9 is $99, the full version of Win98 SE
is
> > > $189... Who's out of touch?
> >
> > There is no "full version" of OS 9 - they're all upgrades.
> >
> >
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                26-Nov-99 21:00:26
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "LP" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:znu-2611991323430001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <uiy%3.23043$[e-mail]>, "LP"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:znu-2611990043330001@192.168.0.2...
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, "Christopher
> > > Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[e-mail]...
> > > > > Funny, the full version of OS 9 is $99, the full version of Win98
SE
> > is
> > > > > $189... Who's out of touch?
> > > >
> > > > There is no "full version" of OS 9 - they're all upgrades.
> > >
> > > But we can determine the price of a "full version" of Mac OS. Mac OS
8.0
> > > ran on CHRP systems, and was priced the same as every Mac OS release
> > > since.
> >
> > If you are usin an upgrade license as a new license.. then you are
violating
> > the law.
> >
> > If we're going to discuss criminal behavior.. then well, my Deep Blue
> > computer cost me $0.01 and runs rings around any of your "personal
> > computers"...
>
> But it isn't an upgrade license. Read a Mac OS licensing agreement.
> Nowhere does it say you much have a previous version of the OS.

I have read it.  That is why you can not convince me otherwise.

Simply put, I trust the official publications of Apple over your claims.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 13:12:03
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: "LP" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
> > much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
> [snip]
>
> Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no matter
> how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
> desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.

Where do you get your numbers?  *EVERTHING* I have seen place not only
Win98, but WIn95, NT4.0 as well
as Win3.11 WfWG installed and running OS's before the MacOS.

Now, with time.. MacOS will obviously superceed Win3.11.. but I don't see it
surpassing Win98, Win95 or NT anytime soon..




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 13:02:25
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "LP" <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:81nuri$h3e$[e-mail]...
> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke... There
> really
> > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at first
> > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the case
> for
> > Win98 SE...
> >
>
> Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with the
> service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the user.

You can download just about everything but the "Internet connection sharing"
feature for free. At least, that was the only substantial difference that I
could find..


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 14:28:15
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "LP" <[e-mail]>

Holger Veit <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:12:33 -0500, Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >On <QU304.32376$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at
06:24
> >AM,
> >   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
> >
> >> So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
> >> www.microsoft.com lately?
> >
> >According to Microsoft's website and the quarterly CD, Win 9x can only be
> >made Y2K compliant with "consierations" . This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable
> >to me and most of my clients.
> >
> >An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> >non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
> >little bit pregnant. Can't be.
>
> Apparently M$ has managed to make partial pregnancy possible...
> (product half running after 9 months).

Um.. those "considerations" generally pertain to how the OS will handle
non-Y2K compliant applications and programs.

It's all fine and dandy for the OS and computer to be Y2K complaint.. but
that doesn't matter if you have a non-compliant application/database.







--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 15:42:29
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "LP" <[e-mail]>

Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > Bingo,  This update corrects, and combines all the fixes and
improvements
> > developed since the release of Win98, including the security issues, it
> does
> > improve filesystem performance.  Corrects some minor Dial up Networking
> > issues and all the Y2K fixes, both packs.
>
> I believe that all this is available from the Windows Update page for
Win98
> users, so there isn't really a difference is there? Win98 SE seems to be
an
> updated Win98 with all the service packs and upgrades installed already,
and
> a few thousand more bugs thrown in for good measure.
>
> > Win98SE is a Service Pack.
>
> Then why are they charging at all? My Visual Studio service packs don't
cost
> me anything...

There are a few new "features" in SE, that is not available in the free
download. About the only one of significance is the
internet connection sharing.

If you are not interested in ICS ( or use Wingate, WinProxy etc.. ) then
stick with the free download. Of course, if you have WIn98 already, you can
get the SE "upgrade" for $20.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 28-Nov-99 13:07:06
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 16:57:23
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (George Graves)

In article <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
>much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
>Now I'm A+ certified and well-versed with many operating systems and I
>even know a bit about the Mac since I am unfortunate enough to have to
>work with them at times.

You could have fooled us. Most of stuff you mentioned in your other
thread: Option -O to eject disks, a reset key on the keyboard, multiple
instances of applications, all of these point toward someone who has never
used a Mac, and basically has NO IDEA what he/she is doing with it. Of
course MacOS is going to seem "lame" to someone who doesn't know how to
drive it, just as it would seem lame to someone who approached it with a
number of preconceptions about how it "should" work based on the knowledge
of how other OSes work (you seem to fall in both categories). The Mac user
who approaches Windows, or Linux expecting these OSes to work just like a
Mac are going to complain that these systems are no good because they
can't figure out how to do anything with them. You don't know anything
about the Macintosh OS, and apparently aren't willing to learn. So you
come here and show your ignorance by complaing that the Mac doesn't work
the way you want it to because you are invoking commands and operations
that even a Mac-using child knows the Mac wasn't designed to support.
Option-O for instance, does NOTHING in the Mac finder, and in most
applications, option is a gateway to the extended font character access.
Option-O for in this case, yields ╪ (an O with a / through it). Macs don't
do multiple instances of applications, and never have. You open a new
window, not another app instance.

>But the Mac still astounds me with its leaps of illogical,
>style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
>innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
>detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
>inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...

Yes, you could rail for days about something that you don't have the first
CLUE about, but all it does is show YOUR ignorance, it reflects NOT AT ALL
on the MacOS.

>Despite the amount of bitching I do against IBM (and the ocassional
>missile aimed at OS/2 itself), OS/2 still has a a shitload more going
>for it than the Crapintosh ever technically will and I still have to aim
>another missile at IBM wondering how they couldn't get OS/2 to sell.

Well, if you knew the Mac 1/10th as well as you claim to know OS/2, you
would see that they have much in common. But OS/2 is obsolete. It is not
supported anymore by third parties and it will only run 16-bit Windows
apps, which must be getting pretty few and far between as well. So join
your Atari comrades, your Amiga comrades, and your NeXT comrades and deal
with it. You have Windows or MacOS, pick one.

>What really went wrong?

Microsoft.

>IBM got their PC from 1980, a real piece of
>shit motivated by their name and nothing more, to sell, so why not
>OS/2?  Did people decide that OS/2 was meant for PS/2 (which also came
>out at a similar time) and nothing more?  People used OS/2 with the ATM
>boxes (and didn't know or care any better since OS/2 was not advertised
>and people were only doing one task, hence the SIQ never blew up on
>them.)
>
>I genuinely feel sorry for the situation.  IBM is still responsible for
>most of it, but I despise seeing technologically superior things be
>shoved on the wayside in favor of pure trash (anything from Apple.)

>Apple is still having an orgasm over a pathetic case design.  Sorry, but
>a translucent blue case (inspired by a german brand iron) is nothing
>when the OS is incredibly finicky and unstable.  And with luck the
>illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt.  They deserve
>it.

Why don't you try to LEARN something about the Mac before you condemn it?
I put it to you that you haven't a clue about how the Mac system works,
and therefore have no credibility in you criticisms of it. Go play with
your OS/2.

--
George Graves

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Graves Associates (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 16:22:09
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Gabriel Morales <[e-mail]>

You might also want to try this article:

http://www.MacKiDo.com/Interface/ui_history.html

which discusses this very ongoing argument in a very logical manner, as
well as other articles from the MacKiDo interface section. While you're
at it, try going through the pages of this website:

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/

And anyone who questions why Microsoft has been so "vilified" might come
to question how Microsoft has been able to get away with these crimes
for so long and why it hasn't been fully brought to the general public's
awareness even today, and might even ask why Microsoft hasn't been even
more "vilified".

--
Come visit my domain at http://www.concentric.net/~Togega/.

Gabriel Morales

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: ---- (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          28-Nov-99 21:27:16
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>> [e-mail]
>> And you can't seem to get that kill-filter figured out numerous days
>> after you claimed to have already set it up. And you expect us to
>> believe that you setup and maintain computers? Riiiiiiiiight.
>> Suuuuuuure. Yep. We believe it.

>Bob Germer
>I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
>grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
>machines.

*If* that's to be believed (and indeed, I have no doubt whatsoever
that it is yet another one of your brainless fabrications, much less
the numerous, phony "anecdotes" you like to spew), why on earth would
you choose to read the messages of a person whom you claimed to have
already killfiled twice on two different computers -- your home
computer and your notebook computer that you use when traveling?? Do
you *not* know how to use a news reader program?

Indeed, what happened to that alleged notebook you use when your
traveling?

Do let me know when you finally get your brainless lies sorted out
(not that I'll ever believe any of your implausible nonsense. I've
already seen enough from you to realize that you're a complete fake
and phony)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                28-Nov-99 21:29:21
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:

ΩIn article <38414a9e$5$obot$[e-mail]>,
ΩBob Germer  <[e-mail]> wrote:
█
Ω>IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
Ω>decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
Ω>of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
Ω>tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
Ω>PC as a BUSINESS tool. ...
█
Ω>IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
Ω>professionals.
█
Ω    That's all well and good, but looking from the outside, it's not
Ωclear what the real advantages of OS/2 might be; what does it have that
ΩLinux, for example, does not have? A better GUI, perhaps, and stuff like
Ωthe Workplace Shell.
█
Ω    And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
█
Ω    This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
Ωorder to get Win32 support.

It's ongoing; started about six months or so ago.  However, they're
taking a slightly different approach.  See http://www.netlabs.org/odin
for details...

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          28-Nov-99 21:31:09
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer
>This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable
>to me and most of my clients.

You have no "clients". You're a fake and phony and everything you know
you got from reading articles in PC Magazine

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 13:37:00
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-28-99, 7:28:30 PM, "LP" <[e-mail]> wrote regarding Re:
Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January:


> Holger Veit <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:12:33 -0500, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >On <QU304.32376$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at
> 06:24
> > >AM,
> > >   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
> > >
> > >> So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
> > >> www.microsoft.com lately?
> > >
> > >According to Microsoft's website and the quarterly CD, Win 9x can
only be
> > >made Y2K compliant with "consierations" . This is ABSOLUTELY
unacceptable
> > >to me and most of my clients.
> > >
> > >An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> > >non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being
a
> > >little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> >
> > Apparently M$ has managed to make partial pregnancy possible...
> > (product half running after 9 months).

> Um.. those "considerations" generally pertain to how the OS will
handle
> non-Y2K compliant applications and programs.

> It's all fine and dandy for the OS and computer to be Y2K complaint..
but
> that doesn't matter if you have a non-compliant application/database.

Baloney.

MS's Orwellian speak applies to the compliance of all of their
software including their applications such as Excel.  The complaint
and criticism stands - MS's Y2K response for their OS and applications
is a "partial pregnancy".  There has been a lot of professional
criticism levied at MS for their half-baked and very late response(s).




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          28-Nov-99 21:38:20
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>>>Loren Petrich
>>>>What's with Dave Tholen?

>>>Karel Jansens
>>>You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...

>>Is he that much of a jerk?

>Mayor Of R'lyeh
>Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

Indeed. All you have to do is express an opinion that he doesn't want
to hear and you'll see the full effect of his moronic vaudeville
routine, including some of the most illogical, inconsistent,
hypocritical, literal-to-the-point-of-dense, myopic, contradictory,
pedantic, pointless, and truly, truly stupid nonsense you'll ever read
on Usenet. I even maintain a "digest" of some of his most hypocritical
and contradictory nonsense (which Karel Jansens has seen. Karel is
impressed with that sort of nonsense though. He's *not* the brightest
guy you'll ever meet on Usenet, and his comments about Tholen reveal
why. After you get done reading the digest and are shaking your head
in disbelief and disgust at Tholen's tripe, I'll also send you copies
of Karel's comments on Tholen so that you can learn just how clueless
Karel is)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                 28-Nov-99 17:00:17
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]>

"Gabriel Morales" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> You might also want to try this article:
>
> http://www.MacKiDo.com/Interface/ui_history.html
>
> which discusses this very ongoing argument in a very logical manner, as
> well as other articles from the MacKiDo interface section. While you're
> at it, try going through the pages of this website:

You might bear in mind that MacKiDo is not a very accurate site; While the
broad outlines are often basically correct, the devil is in the details.

I would agree that Apple didn't 'steal' the Xerox UI, but you should not
accept MacKiDo's claims that Microsoft 'stole' DOS, either. In both cases
the companies dealt very shrewdly and got the better end of the deal.

More relevantly, did Microsoft steal big hunks of the Macintosh toolbox; if
you actually do look at early Windows apps you do not see the great
similarities this article claims you will see. The design and
implementation of the Windows API are very different from the Mac
toolbox. I've been outlining all this in detail in previous posts in this
thread, so I won't repeat. Sufficed to say MacKiDo is making stuff up,
again.

I only wonder if this bilge *started* with the illustrious MacKiDo, or
whether he's recycling something secondhand.

Anyway, if you like we can take this article apart too. But I would not site
MacKiDo as a source on anything.

[snip]







--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Nov-99 22:00:05
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:46:31, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:

> In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-iCnL08dE2LI6@localhost>,
> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
> >wrote:
>
> >>     What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
> >You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>
>     Is he that much of a jerk?
>
He hasn't been to me once. Again, you will be warned that my opinion
of Dave Tholen is insignificant, biased and probably just totally
wrong.

Oh, and I'm a clueless newbie too.

>     [On integrating X-windows and OS/2...]
>
> >The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
> >to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
> >http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
> >myself yet.
>
>     Interesting.

It sure looks it. IMO, it's not really ready for prime time. Then
again, it's a voluntary individual project: imagine what it could be
with a little more support. The gripping hand: if I ever decide it's
time to leave OS/2, there's already a backup in the wings.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 17:25:04
  To: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

To: Karel Jansens <[e-mail]>
From: Mark Schlegel <[e-mail]>

Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <[e-mail]>,
> > Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
> >
> > .... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
> > >between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric
Bennett.
> >
> >       What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
> >
> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
> because it's obvious that you should comply to the opinion those
> people have of Dave Tholen. Whatever you do, *don't* tell them you
> want to find out for yourself, and *never* let it become public
> knowledge that you've had an interesting and entertaining dialog with
> Dave Tholen. It may not be nice to Dave, but it will make your
> net-life a lot easier...
>
> >       And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
> > Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
> > petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
> > least a port of the Workspace Shell.
> >
> There's XFreeOS/2, which will let you run (recompiled) X-programs in
> OS/2. Not (yet) in a window though, XOS/2 takes over your desktop full
> screen. IIRC, information can be exchanged with native OS/2 apps.

Not exactly true any more, you can run Xfreeos/2 in a window via
VNC server, see:
http://www.sra.co.jp/people/akira/os2/xvnc/index.html
Mark

... cut ...

>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Nov-99 22:44:25
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:

> In article <38414a9e$5$obot$[e-mail]>,
> Bob Germer  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
> >decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
> >of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
> >tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
> >PC as a BUSINESS tool. ...
>
> >IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
> >professionals.
>
>     That's all well and good, but looking from the outside, it's not
> clear what the real advantages of OS/2 might be; what does it have that
> Linux, for example, does not have? A better GUI, perhaps, and stuff like
> the Workplace Shell.
>
This is a very interesting question. For me, a large part of the
answer would be: invested time and money. I chose OS/2 over Windows at
a time when Windows's uptime could be measured in minutes and hours,
and OS/2's in weeks to months. There was no Linux to speak of at that
time (it was there, but with kernel version numbers starting with
0.9.x, no distributions and *really* crappy hardware support, it
wasn't exactly an alternative for a business solution).

Since that time, Linux has grown enormeously (spoken in a positive
way), Windows now has uptimes that can sometimes actually reach more
than one day <evil grin>, and OS/2... well, it simply still does the
job. I don't really need much more than the ability to process some
words, crunch my numbers and merrily (cluelessly to some) bob around
on the digital oceans. I don't play many games (and I stink at the
ones that I do play) and I really hate to have to learn my
wordprocessor overnew every six months (WP6 for DOS is still my
favourite). The so-called "dearth of applications" for OS/2 isn't that
important to me: the ones I have I got in the era when there were
plenty developers for OS/2 and I could choose. They work perfectly, so
why complain that I can't find new ones?

One positive thing (other than the robustness) that keeps me with Warp
is the WPS. It is a very powerful, intuitive and easy to learn OOUI.
In fact, it is AFAIK at the moment the only OOUI in existence. I've
tried Windows GUI's in just about every incarnation, I have oodles of
Linux windowmanagers, KDE and Gnome, but none of them even comes close
(KDE has some potential, but they seem to have decided to focus on
glitz and purdy pictures instead of power).

>     And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
>
That depends. For frustrated Windows users, maybe. But for Microsoft,
that now has a vast market of gullible money-spenders, who knows? It's
in their interest to make Windows just crappy enough, and have people
believe that it is everybody's but Microsoft's fault. It's called good
marketing, and there are people in this newsgroup who will actually
praise Microsoft for doing such a thing.

The thing to remember is that some of these people are calling *me*
clueless...

>     This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
> order to get Win32 support.
>
See Project Odin at the aforementioned Netlabs site.

> --
> Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [e-mail]            And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               28-Nov-99 22:52:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:17:13 -0500, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 08:13 AM,
>   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:
>
>
>> And you can't seem to get that kill-filter figured out numerous days
>> after you claimed to have already set it up. And you expect us to
>> believe that you setup and maintain computers? Riiiiiiiiight.
>> Suuuuuuure. Yep. We believe it.
>
>I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
>grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
>machines.
>

Yet you took the time to set up your .sig on this other persons
machine, and got it character perfect

A post from the 15/11:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

And the one to which I reply (28/11)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

Hmmm.....odd that you wouldn't take the time to set up a kill filter
which you can easily reverse, but you *do* take the time to set up
your signature file *exactly* as on your usual machine.

>I leave that to illigitimate anal retentives like you.

 First Bob, what kind of anal retentive would go to so much trouble
with his .sig?   Or maybe you didn't, which leads to:

Second, the evidence suggests that you are spinning some folks a yarn,
Bob.

Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               28-Nov-99 22:52:25
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 28 Nov 1999 01:36:03 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

>David Sutherland writes:
>
>>> Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:
>>>
>>> CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
>>> CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.
>>>
>>> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
>
>> Liar.
>
>How ironic, coming from a liar.
>

Sure thing Tholen - whatever makes you happy.

>> You also deleted "Yet to look at the contents, one must have
>> run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"  which was
>> *not* old text as evidenced by the lack of ">" characters, Tholen.
>
>On the contrary, it is old text, as evidence by the quotation marks.
>

Nonsense - it was not old text - it was current and crucial to the
subject under discussion.  That quote was reinserted to restore
context in the message to which you were replying - it made it's
reappearance for very good reasons and it is a lie to pretend
otherwise.

>> You lie, plain and simple.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone lying, plain and simple.

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file
and on an OS/2 system to boot!"

This is the lie, Tholen.  Plain and simple.   I note you still refuse
to address it.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   28-Nov-99 23:01:02
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: ZnU <[e-mail]>

In article <mxg04.24205$[e-mail]>, "LP"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:znu-2611991323430001@192.168.0.2...
> > In article <uiy%3.23043$[e-mail]>, "LP"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:znu-2611990043330001@192.168.0.2...
> > > > In article <[e-mail]>,
> > > > "Christopher
> > > > Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[e-mail]...
> > > > > > Funny, the full version of OS 9 is $99, the full version of
> > > > > > Win98
> SE
> > > is
> > > > > > $189... Who's out of touch?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no "full version" of OS 9 - they're all upgrades.
> > > >
> > > > But we can determine the price of a "full version" of Mac OS. Mac
> > > > OS
> 8.0
> > > > ran on CHRP systems, and was priced the same as every Mac OS
> > > > release
> > > > since.
> > >
> > > If you are usin an upgrade license as a new license.. then you are
> violating
> > > the law.
> > >
> > > If we're going to discuss criminal behavior.. then well, my Deep Blue
> > > computer cost me $0.01 and runs rings around any of your "personal
> > > computers"...
> >
> > But it isn't an upgrade license. Read a Mac OS licensing agreement.
> > Nowhere does it say you much have a previous version of the OS.
>
> I have read it.  That is why you can not convince me otherwise.

So please quote the sections that disallow installation if one doesn't
own a previous version of Mac OS.

> Simply put, I trust the official publications of Apple over your claims.

Official publications?

--
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   28-Nov-99 23:03:00
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: ZnU <[e-mail]>

In article <rxg04.24213$[e-mail]>, "LP"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to
> > > be
> > > much easier for computer illiterates to use.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no
> > matter
> > how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
> > desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.
>
> Where do you get your numbers?  *EVERTHING* I have seen place not only
> Win98, but WIn95, NT4.0 as well
> as Win3.11 WfWG installed and running OS's before the MacOS.
>
> Now, with time.. MacOS will obviously superceed Win3.11.. but I don't see
> it
> surpassing Win98, Win95 or NT anytime soon..

I thought it would be rather obvious that I was talking about platforms,
not specific OSes.

--
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 23:01:01
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <[e-mail]>,
George Graves <[e-mail]> wrote:

[to an OS/2-loving Mac attacker:]

>Well, if you knew the Mac 1/10th as well as you claim to know OS/2, you
>would see that they have much in common. But OS/2 is obsolete. It is not
>supported anymore by third parties and it will only run 16-bit Windows
>apps, which must be getting pretty few and far between as well. So join
>your Atari comrades, your Amiga comrades, and your NeXT comrades and deal
>with it. You have Windows or MacOS, pick one.

    Even though OS/2 seems to be going the way of the Amiga, I would
not want to pick on OS/2 advocates too much; remember that the OS/2 guys
and us Macoids share a common enemy: Micro$oft.

    And there is now an up-and-coming third choice: Linux. It is
developed and supported by a whole community, so it is not vulnerable to
the whims of a single company -- whether it be IBM or Apple or Commodore
or whatever. However, its GUI's still have a way to go.

    As to NeXT, it is being reborn as MacOS X.

>Why don't you try to LEARN something about the Mac before you condemn it?
>I put it to you that you haven't a clue about how the Mac system works,
>and therefore have no credibility in you criticisms of it. Go play with
>your OS/2.

    I agree -- and I think that he ought to recognize who the *real*
enemy is.

--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 23:01:02
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56 GMT, Loren Petrich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
>
>... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
>>between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
>
>    What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

Once a jerk, always a jerk.  Dave is always the first person in my
killfile whenver I try out a new newsreader.

>
>    And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
>Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
>petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
>least a port of the Workspace Shell.

There's really no need for the first thing, since EMX and XFree86/2 allow
one to run just about any Unix/X type application natively.  As to second
thing, I would love to see a WPS port for Linux but I doubt it'll ever
happen.  Among other things, for the WPS to really work properly under
Linux it would require some kind of hack to ext2fs to support extended
attributes.  Not totally insurmountable, but definitely a hurdle.  It
would probably be easier to port it to NT, since NTFS supports extended
attributes.  That would cause some stares....

 >
>    I mention Linux because that seems to be succeeding where OS/2
>has failed. I don't mean to pick on you OS/2 lovers out there, but IBM
>seems to be content to let it slowly go the way of the Amiga.

IBM gave up selling it to us lowly home users some time back, and would
love to sell it only to big organizations such as banks.  Yes, IBM is
doing everything they can to drive all us little guys away.  Still works
here though, and IBM does actually support it (believe it or not).  Going
to have to pay for it though, pretty soon now.

As to Linux's success, that's due to a bunch of reasons, such as its *not*
from IBM or Microsoft or Novell or Apple or Sun or....(fill in the name
here).  There's also quite a bit of disgust with MS that is feeding the
Linux movement-it's always fun being the underdog.

 >
>--
>Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[e-mail]            And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html


--
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Twinco, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 23:07:25
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jack Troughton <[e-mail]> wrote:

>█    This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
>█order to get Win32 support.

>It's ongoing; started about six months or so ago.  However, they're
>taking a slightly different approach.  See http://www.netlabs.org/odin
>for details...

    The Odin folx seem to be doing a nice job -- and one really nice
thing about them is that they graphically list their progress --
something hard to find in any of the WINE sites.
--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 23:48:09
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:17
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-6PZECduxo9Gk@localhost>,
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:

[What OS/2 has that Linux doesn't...]

[Choosing OS/2 when Windoze was extremely crash-prone and when Linux was
at version 0.9.x...]

>Since that time, Linux has grown enormeously (spoken in a positive
>way), Windows now has uptimes that can sometimes actually reach more
>than one day <evil grin>, and OS/2... well, it simply still does the
>job. [some simple office tasks...]

... I don't play many games (and I stink at the
>ones that I do play) ...

    Interesting perspective.

 and I really hate to have to learn my
>wordprocessor overnew every six months (WP6 for DOS is still my
>favourite).

    Which says something about M$.

 The so-called "dearth of applications" for OS/2 isn't that
>important to me: the ones I have I got in the era when there were
>plenty developers for OS/2 and I could choose. They work perfectly, so
>why complain that I can't find new ones?

    That's certainly fair. My mother uses an old 286 with an old DOS
version of WordPerfect.

>One positive thing (other than the robustness) that keeps me with Warp
>is the WPS. It is a very powerful, intuitive and easy to learn OOUI.
>In fact, it is AFAIK at the moment the only OOUI in existence. ...
[on there being none like it]

    I'm not likely to use OS/2 anytime soon, but I'd be happy to at
least try out a Workspace Shell clone for MacOS X, if one ever comes out.
I'm not sure if I would be able to contribute to such a project, but if
one got started...

    MacOS X is, in a way, not "really" the MacOS, but an updated
version of NeXTStep with the old MacOS run in virtual-machine fashion,
something like OS/2's support for DOS and Win16.
--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 00:01:12
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-6PZECduxo9Gk@localhost>,
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:

>>     And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?

>That depends. For frustrated Windows users, maybe. But for Microsoft,
>that now has a vast market of gullible money-spenders, who knows? It's
>in their interest to make Windows just crappy enough, and have people
>believe that it is everybody's but Microsoft's fault. It's called good
>marketing, and there are people in this newsgroup who will actually
>praise Microsoft for doing such a thing.

    Actually, what one is accustomed to often plays a large part in
making such judgments. Consider some anecdotes from the xUSSR in the
1960's and 1970's, when it started accepting lots of tourists and when
lots of upper-ranking Soviets started traveling abroad.

    A Soviet official went abroad and visited a US(?) car factory. He
asked why his hosts went through all the trouble to round up cars to
impress him. To him, those cars must have been yet another Potemkin Village.

    Some guests from the US or western Europe asked their hosts if
they felt any hardship in having to get hard currency. Their hosts
responded that they are sure that their guests had had to do that. But
the joke here is that their guests' countries' currency is *already* hard
currency.

    Thus, many people accustomed to the crankiness of M$ software may
be like all those Soviet citizens accustomed to Potemkin Villages and
having to acquire hard currency.

    Source: "Russia: the Power and the Glory"(?), by someone whose
name I don't recall; also, there is Hedrick Smith's "The Russians"(?).

>Microsoft MVP -- Not!

    Yes, I know about that scandal where M$ fired some of them.

--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      28-Nov-99 16:05:19
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > Bingo,  This update corrects, and combines all the fixes and
improvements
> > developed since the release of Win98, including the security issues, it
> does
> > improve filesystem performance.  Corrects some minor Dial up Networking
> > issues and all the Y2K fixes, both packs.
>
> I believe that all this is available from the Windows Update page for
Win98
> users, so there isn't really a difference is there? Win98 SE seems to be
an
> updated Win98 with all the service packs and upgrades installed already,
and
> a few thousand more bugs thrown in for good measure.
>
> > Win98SE is a Service Pack.
>
> Then why are they charging at all? My Visual Studio service packs don't
cost
> me anything...
>

Because there are those that will pay.

> --
> Ruel Smith
> Cincinnati, OH
>
> CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:40:18
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Excuse me, Huffy, but I have not been writing to you directly let alone

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

...fuck off.

"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:

> Absolutely! They've started writing me direct the past several weeks. See
> my post from later tonight. I think they are taking the verdict a little
> hard. I expected the same verdict, I think it is their limited maturity
> that has them in a perpetual knee jerk reaction. I suspect that after the
> Caldera decision is announced (foregone conclusion) there will be another
> rash of hostility. Then hopefully they will recede back into their
> closets.
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> > Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> > more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> > court defeats?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:37:03
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: You've asked for this.  :-)

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

No, we just don't give a damn about Linux users which is why we mostly
avoid the windows.advocacy groups.

And what makes you think I'm a total Windows advocate?  You must have
selective vision as I have talked about BeOS and even Linux in the past
and have genuinely supported oS/2 over the Macintosh.  Besides, most of my
rants are against IBM without mentioning any other company name.

Kindly remove me from your list of "Windows advocates" and just call me
"bastard advocate irritant in general", okay?

"David T. Johnson" wrote:

> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> court defeats?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:34:11
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Howard Stern and OS/2

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

Well, now we know why OS/2 really didn't sell:

That pervo Stern uses it and who wanted to be related to him in any way?  :-)


Marty wrote:

> Just curious, but does anyone know if Howard Stern still uses OS/2 at the
> office?
>
> I remember back when Win95 came out, he was discussing OS/2 on his radio
> program and several times in subsequent programs I've heard the Warp startup
> sound and other OS/2 blips and tweeps in the background.
>
> I was wondering if anyone knew if he still used it.
>
> - Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:42:18
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

I'm forced to agree.  I don't know about the other "Windows advocates" but
I'm beginning to sense a different sort of conspiracy.  Just because I said
recently that "I had to go to windows because it, unlike OS/2, had the apps I
needed" does not make me a Windows advocate.  I've said I'd much rather use
OS/2 than Macintosh and I have brought out BeOS with a good light, too.

These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying to tell
the truth.

Jeff Glatt wrote:

> >>David T. Johnson
> >> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> >> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> >> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> >> court defeats?
>
> >David D. Huff Jr.
> >Absolutely! They've started writing me direct the past several weeks.
>
> Uh no, I haven't "written you direct". Apparently, you've been
> fantasying about receiving email again. How many times does your
> psychiatrist have to explain to you that you will never receive email
> from people unless you take your medication and stop scaring people
> away?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:39:03
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

Excuse me?  It seems there's more than one blind dipshit around here.
Unless I'm mistaken I don't recall ONCE supporting Win2000 or even thinking
highly of it.  As I've said before it's oversized, hoggy, and will
undoubtedly be very overpriced and I'm certainly not going to be buying it!

Kindly be so kind and direct your attacks to the appropriate people and
don't start spreading rumors about others.

William Sonna wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:47:06, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> > Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> > more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> > court defeats?
>
> I'd say they seem a bit upset and prone to unwarranted tirades.  But
> since they don't use OS/2 (where bad news is routine), they are not
> accustomed to the kind of insecurity that the 1-2 punch of Gates
> putting Win'98 on the chopping block and the Judge putting Microsoft
> on the chopping block brings to their computing lives.
>
> What they fail to grasp is that three months from now, Win '2000 will
> be out, the verdict will be under appeal, Gates will be raking in the
> bucks as always, and they will be happily spending their money new
> hardware and software to run on the OS of the future.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 00:40:01
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: [e-mail] (sheldon)

Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
>sheldon wrote:
>>  Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.

>Well the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 was modest EXCEPT for the IE
integration,
>purposely weaving it into the OS.  Win98 to Win98 SE is "substantial" is the
>definition is "True or real; not imaginary"  More commonly substantial  means
>"Considerable in importance"  In that case, absolutely not.

 Umm, the Win98 release offered much more than just the integration of IE.

 Yes, primarily what it was was a release of Win95 with all kinds of addons
all bundled together.  Win98 supported FAT32, USB, television hooks, and a
bunch of other little tweaks.

 I honestly didn't find it worthwhile upgrading to myself so I did not buy
it.  However I did receive a free copy by attending a MS promotional event.

>>  Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.

>IE v1.0 was written by spyglass and the edition that was shipped with Win95.
Even
>Win95 OSR2, IE  wasn't engineered into the OS.  Win98 was the 1st edition in
which
>IE was integrated into the OS.  Win98SE was as substantial as a incremental
>service pack.

 No, IE v1.0 did not ship with Win95.  I believe it might have been part of
the Plus pack.  However some version of Win95, i don't recall if it was
after SP1 or OSR2 did ship with Win95 integrated.  That is, when you
installed Win95 you got IE, there was no option during the install.

 You are confusing the integration of the Explorer interface with whether or
not IE was part of the Win9x installation.  Completely different topic
considering IE4 could be isntalled on top of Win95 and achieve the same
result.


 I don't see the point in arguing this further.  I have Win98 installed on
my machine as a secondary OS, but my primary OS is Windows NT because it is
stable, and Win9x is not.

--
Steve Sheldon                          email: [e-mail]
BSCS/MCSE                              url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
Now Powered by Windows CE! :)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:50:08
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

These are OS/2 users.  If you haven't noticed, they're no better than
anyone else.  Plenty of them distribute an illegal copy of hpfs386.exe
around the newsgroups so that they can FINALLY have part of their file
systems using 32-bit code (unlike that 16-bit code which IBM feels is
32-bit, hence their labelling of OS/2 as a 32-bit OS, you see...)

Dave Tholen wrote:

> Diablo writes:
>
> > I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
> > And Post It Here
>
> Quite illegal, even if it existed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:48:21
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

I don't know about the other "Windows advocates" as you call them, but
I'm beginning to sense a different sort of conspiracy from certain OS/2
users whose quantity of brain cells almost matches their IQ (which must
be nearly 20).

Just because I said recently that "I went to go to windows because it,
unlike OS/2, had the apps I needed and was the most visible choice" does
not make me a Windows advocate in any way shape or form.  I have not
been saying on a general level "Go buy windows because OS/2 is dead."
I've said "OS/2 is dead" a million times but that hardly makes me a
windows advocate.

I've said I'd much rather use OS/2 than Macintosh and I have brought out
BeOS with a good light, too.  Most of my posts are genuinely anti-IBM.
This does not make me a Windows advocate in any way shape or form.  And
if you think I'm lying, particularly referring to the macintosh issue,
then you really have gone off the deep end!

Most windows advocates say "Go use windows!  Windows 98!  2000!!!!!"
They do not say "IBM is shit."  Or at least they do not say "IBM is
shit." without making some sort of "use windows" line thrown in.  Nor do
they point out other operating systems which are decent nor would they
take the time to place OS/2 above another OS in terms of answering
"Which would I rather deal with?"

These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying to
tell the truth.

And they're equally stupid and more willing to blindly chuck in anybody
who they feel should be in the group even if they are not by any means a
total windows advocate.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 17:50:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

Be careful, some will call you a windows advocate!

Joe Malloy wrote:

> > I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
> > Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
> > Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
> > But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
>
> Well, let's suppose that's true (I, frankly, don't believe it, but, hey,
> I've been known to be wrong!).  You're saying that you can now run, under
> old-fashioned OS/2, a more modern product by a competitor.  Well, gee, you
> could have run that competitor's product in 1995, goshdarnit!  In the
> meantime, that competitor has continued to move ahead.  Tell me, can your
> OS/2 run Windows 2000?  I thought not.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        29-Nov-99 00:51:21
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
| In <VG304.32361$[e-mail]>, "Brent Davies"
<[e-mail]> writes:
| |
| |Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
| |news:81o62o$kd3$[e-mail]...
| ||
| |[snip]
| || >
| || > Well, the mistake is thinking that people are really more efficient
| || > using something other than a VT100. For lots of office work, this
| || > probably isn't true <g>.
| || >
| ||
| || Actually, my experience is that it is true. Remember that while running
| || windows the VT session is still available, with the added benefit of
being
| || able to cut and paste from the screen to other applications, not
something
| || that is usually available on a simple serial connection.
| |
| |There are few corporate uses for VTs. The most common that I have
| |experienced is database access (data entry/retrieval).  I have yet to see
| |someone create marketing docs, do video or image creation, manager
| |their own time (as an excutive would), or conduct market research
| |through a terminal session.  Besides that, it would be a drag on
| |productivity in most of the environments in which I have worked.
| |
| |I hear a lot of "limit what the user can do" arguments from the Unix
| |community, but I've also had the pleasure of speaking with a
| |Silicon Valley CEO about how he keeps his employees in their
| |jobs. He absolutely refuses to restrict the computing environment
| |of his employees what-so-ever.  "A happy employee is a productive
| |employee", and this particular CEO took that VERY seriously.
| |
| |So why again should I restrict my users to a VT and only that
| |software that a mainframe could serve them?
| |
| |-B
|
| First, VT's do not connect to mainframes; and, if you think that what
| they _do_ connect to _is_ a mainframe, you need to get out more.
|
| Second, if you think you cannot manage your own time without a GUI,
| you just aren't thinking. Ever heard of PROFS? You may not like it;
| but, it has managed schedules for people for longer than there have
| been GUI's. Judging from you comments on what you have not seen dumb
| terminals do, I reiterate my advice that you get out more.

I just love the mind-set that if a product has been doing something for
a particular amount of time, then it MUST be the best product.  So,
if I happen across a model-T, since it's been driving for around 1
century, does that mean I should dump my 1998 automobile and
start driving the model-T?

|
| Third, I'll wager that CEO's IT staff does not agree with him; since,
| in my experience, users are happiest with things that work reliably
| and consistently.

Users are happy with what they want.  If they want something that
isn't reliable, they will start to NOT want it and get something else.
Besides, the world doesn't revolve around what we "IT people"
think is best for the users.  You sound like you'd like to have the
same power as Bill Gates, so you can exert it over your user-base.

| Allowing your user community to run anything they
| please may put a smile on their faces; but, it won't work unless you
| also refuse to support those smiling faces. I can run any OS I please;
| but, only a handful get support from corporate IT.

See comment about.

|
| OTOH, maybe you download all your 'productivity' software from AOL...
|
| regards,

Shove your "regards".

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        29-Nov-99 00:52:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
| In article <SM304.32369$[e-mail]>, Brent Davies
| wrote:
| >
| >Solaris has become somewhat nebulous since the release of its source.
|
| That hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

What's up with downloading it for $10?  I know that doesn't
mean the source code is available, but I thought they were
doing the source code and the "$10 personal use" thing
both at the same time?

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            28-Nov-99 16:52:21
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Timberwoof <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> Come visit my domain at http://www.concentric.net/~Togega/.

So what's

"MacGUI is currently offline. It is presently being revamped" all about?

Call me a radical, but I completely agree with those nuts who keep
putting up those orange signs at freeway work sites:

End Construction!

--
Timberwoof; mroeder<at>best<dot>com; http://www.best.com/~mroeder
Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider, and
not your ordinary noncomformist. "You may have the right to say that,
but I will defend to the death my right to disagree."

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Infernosoft (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        29-Nov-99 00:56:24
  To: All                                               28-Nov-99 21:13:18
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

BOB, HOLGER, AND JOSEPH!!

See Daniel Johnson's posting and see if your
joke holds any water.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   29-Nov-99 01:31:13
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:07:13 -0800, George Graves <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson

Long rant snipped for brevity...

>
>Why don't you try to LEARN something about the Mac before you condemn it?
>I put it to you that you haven't a clue about how the Mac system works,
>and therefore have no credibility in you criticisms of it. Go play with
>your OS/2.

George (and Loren), you really should be aware that Kelly Robinson (not
his real name, btw) is no more an OS/2 user than you are.  He spends an
inordinate amount of in cooa slamming OS/2 and its users, and is if
anything an NT advocate.  And yes, he has displayed just as much
ignorance of how OS/2 works as he apparently has of the MacOS.  You got
trolled, and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
>
>--
>George Graves
>


--
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                  29-Nov-99 01:33:11
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <B7k04.33108$[e-mail]>, Brent Davies
wrote:
>
>What's up with downloading it for $10?  I know that doesn't
>mean the source code is available, but I thought they were
>doing the source code and the "$10 personal use" thing
>both at the same time?

I don't think there's a $10 download either.  At least, they sent me
physical media, and I don't remember there being a download option.

The announcements were made at the same time, but the $10 personal use
license has materialized, and the source code has not yet.

--
 Ben

[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
    order your software package for $459.95!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Firedrake Synthesis (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:19:09
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Loren Petrich writes:

> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

Nothing different compared to the last several years.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:21:29
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Loren Petrich writes:

> Karel Jansens wrote:

>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...

> Is he that much of a jerk?

Not at all.  The "jerks" are the ones who try to foist their FUD,
misinformation, and illogic on this newsgroup, and then react to
my counterings with invective.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:24:07
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

> Loren Petrich wrote:

>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...

>> Is he that much of a jerk?

> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
"gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
example.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:25:06
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Loren Petrich writes:

> but IBM does not seem to be taking OS/2 anywhere

What seems to you is irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:27:24
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

>>> On what basis do you make this claim?

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:35:18
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Kelly Robinson writes:

>> Diablo writes:

>>> I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
>>> And Post It Here

>> Quite illegal, even if it existed.

> These are OS/2 users.

Who are you referring to when you say "These", Kelly?  The person
stating that it is illegal happens to be an OS/2 user.

> If you haven't noticed, they're no better than anyone else.

Are you claiming that they are worse?

> Plenty of them distribute an illegal copy of hpfs386.exe
> around the newsgroups

Evidence, please.

> so that they can FINALLY have part of their file systems using
> 32-bit code

What does the bitness of the code have to do with anything?

> (unlike that 16-bit code which IBM feels is 32-bit,

Evidence, please.

> hence their labelling of OS/2 as a 32-bit OS, you see...)

OS/2 is a 32-bit operating system, but that fact isn't based on
the file system code.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:30:10
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the question.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>> ....and again.

>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>....and again.

>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> ....and again.

Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

The same response again for the reader's reference:

> According to your statement, under what conditions
> does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
> functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

Unnecessary, Lucien, again.  I will restore my two simple tests,
however, given that you've never taken them.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

Note again the pat "refusal" to take the two simple tests:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.
]
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
]
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
]
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
]
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
]
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
]
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 02:38:10
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Kelly Robinson writes:

> I've said "OS/2 is dead" a million times but that hardly makes me a
> windows advocate.

It does make you a liar.

> These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying
> to tell the truth.

Where is the alleged "truth" in the claim that "OS/2 is dead"?  You are
apparently the one who is desperate.  Why else would you resort to such
lies?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          29-Nov-99 02:48:28
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Kelly Robinson
>These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying to tell
>the truth.

OS/2 Advocacy has always hinged upon "attacking the mainstream",
whether it be developers who support Windows, or Windows users (ie,
"lemmings" in OS/2 Advocacy terminology), or journalists who write
favorable things about anything related to Windows (or commit the
unspeakable crime of merely failing to praise OS/2 in every magazine).
That's one big reason why OS/2 Advocacy has, by and large, been a
complete and utter failure.

Historically, OS/2 Advocates have been viewed as a "cult of kooks" by
the mainstream, and that was a self-inflicted image problem. Dave
Whittle, founder of Team OS/2, even publically warned against what he
saw as too much fanaticism and negativity in OS/2 Advocacy.
Regardless, his warning fell upon deaf ears, and OS/2 Advocacy has
reaped what it has sown

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          29-Nov-99 02:52:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>Bob Germer
>>I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
>>grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
>>machines.

>David Sutherland
>Yet you took the time to set up your .sig on this other persons
>machine, and got it character perfect

Good call. His previous "explanation" of why his alleged kill file
wasn't working is that he was using a second (notebook) computer which
he supposedly takes with him when he travels. And yet, now he's
allegedly using someone else's computer when he travels, and setting
that up with his own sig file.

As usual, Bob Germer's "explanations" are rife with inconsistencies
and implausibilities. How many lies has he been caught in now?

He's a complete and utter fake and phony. Nothing he says should be
believed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 22:09:08
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave "Illogical" Tholen wrote:
>
> Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:
>
> CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
> CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.
>
> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

More of his infantile game.  No surprise there.

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, it is the best I can do.
>
> "Inept".

Typical unsubstantiated "invective".

> > Technology has its limits.
>
> I've been able to point to single articles at deja.com, Curtis.

Irrelevant, as technology still has its limits.  Evidence of this is the fact
that the article in question did not show up on DejaNews.  But I guess Tholen
expects all news archives to function the same way, just as he idiotically and
ineptly expects all archiving tools to function the same way.

> > For whatever reason, the webserver resets to the initial page of the
> > thread if you try to link directly to a subpage.
>
> That's not my problem, Curtis.

Apparently it is, as no one else has a problem accessing the evidence in
question.

> > Nevertheless, the evidence *IS* there.
>
> There is no evidence that your JPEG propagated to our news server,
> Curtis.

And there is no reason to care, as the evidence in question does exist and
proves Tholen wrong on yet another point, namely, "Yet to look at the
contents,
one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"  Here's
the evidence in question:
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

> > That you ignore it surprises no one.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that there is evidence of your JPEG
> propagating to our news server, Curtis.

Irrelevant, as Dave has ignored the evidence presented on other servers as
well.

> > Others can (and will) peruse the thread, see the evidence, and
> > conclude that you lose yet again.
>
> Others can peruse the thread, see the evidnece, and see that I'm
> right about OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implementing Java 1.2 functionality.

Perhaps Dave's "evidnece" is something different than evidence which can show
that he is right, but no evidence he has presented shows him to be correct.

> Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence, and discover that
> while I'm addressing the issue, you're making personal attacks.

And they can witness Dave's hypocrisy, "Or are you really that idiotic?"  And
Dave's infantile game, "Is it because of your sex life that your are going
through all of this?"  And Dave's numerous errors, "Yet to look at the
contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to
boot!"  And Dave's avoidance of addressing the issues, "I've already answered
that question, Lucien."  And the list goes on...

> Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence, and find you
> effectively claiming that the truth can't be invective.

What he has "effectively" claimed is irrelevant.  What he has claimed is
relevant.  Of course, this isn't the first time Dave has made an unwarranted
extrapolation.

> Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence, and laugh at your
> claim that I'm making OS/2 look bad because InfoZip can't unzip
> an incomplete file.

And other can witness Dave's ineptness at defending his claims by failing to
download the file in question, then failing to realized it after attempting to
unzip it.  All this he does, after claiming that he himself had full access to
the file in question.  Now that's laughable.

> Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence,
> and realize that you're continuing to post in a subthread where you
> claimed several days ago that that post would be your last.

And others can again witness Dave's hypocrisy by failing to address the
numerous issues presented to him by feebly attempting to dodge them with
irrelevant remarks.

> > In other words, you take the second option:
>
> Incorrect, given that your so-called "evidence" doesn't deal with
> my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

Now that really addresses the issue:
"Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence, and discover that while I'm
addressing the issue, you're making personal attacks."

Of course, Dave has still failed to realize that his incomplete copy of the
file is complete only in its lack of relevance.

> > No surprises there.
>
> Your continued hypocrisy is no surprise, Curtis.
>
> > One cannot "presuppose" that which one has seen, Dave.
>
> Have you seen what propagated to our news server, Curtis?

Of course Dave hasn't seen any evidence, not even the globally available URL
or
the evidence on remarq.com.  No surprise there.

> > Believe whatever you want, Dave,
>
> You're the one with the long list of wrong beliefs, Curtis.

Hmm.. wrong beliefs like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"

> > while the rest of us chuckle and laugh.
>
> As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Thus Tholen's justification for not examining evidence.

> > Another day has gone by and you have failed to post an example of
> > admitting error during an adversarial exchange,
>
> You're the one who made the claim, Curtis, thus the burden of proof
> falls on your shoulders.  I see you've failed yet again to reproduce
> a single unadmitted error during a so-called "adversarial exchange".

Why, here's one:  "Yet, to look at the contents, one must have run the
executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"

> > opting again to arrogantly imply that you do not make errors.
>
> Once again, you fail to demonstrate comprehension of the difference
> between "imply" and "infer".

So if Tholen had not implied that, then his statements were empty, hollow,
pointless, and irrelevant.  I guess I see his point there.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 22:12:19
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 02:24:15 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>"gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>example.

There goes the neighborhood! ;) You claimed to have killfiled me some
months ago. What happened? Did you finally realize you couldn't live
without my sage guidance? :)



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 22:13:14
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 02:25:13 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Loren Petrich writes:
>
>> but IBM does not seem to be taking OS/2 anywhere
>
>What seems to you is irrelevant.

Well where is Big Blue taking it then?



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 03:13:23
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>> Loren Petrich writes:

>>> but IBM does not seem to be taking OS/2 anywhere

>> What seems to you is irrelevant.

> Well where is Big Blue taking it then?

Ask Big Blue.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 03:13:02
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...

>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?

>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>> example.

> There goes the neighborhood!

Illogical.

> ;) You claimed to have killfiled me some months ago.

Incorrect.  I've never claimed to have killfiled anyone.

> What happened?

Your memory problem got in the way.

> Did you finally realize you couldn't live without my sage guidance? :)

You're erroneously presupposing that I killfiled you.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 22:54:08
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
> >>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> > Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> example.

Hmm..
FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
Unfairness like not examining evidence?
Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
of
this?"

Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 22:59:27
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Tholen would use OS/2...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Loren Petrich writes:
>
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
> >> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
> > Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> Not at all.  The "jerks" are the ones who try to foist their FUD,
> misinformation, and illogic on this newsgroup, and then react to
> my counterings with invective.

How hypocritical, or as Dave would say (and has said numerous times), "Or is
he
really that idiotic?"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 22:51:23
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 03:13:05 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>> example.
>
>> There goes the neighborhood!
>
>Illogical.
>
>> ;) You claimed to have killfiled me some months ago.
>
>Incorrect.  I've never claimed to have killfiled anyone.
>
>> What happened?
>
>Your memory problem got in the way.
>
>> Did you finally realize you couldn't live without my sage guidance? :)
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that I killfiled you.

Sorry, Dave but I remember it well. You declared that I wasn't
'serious' enough to be worth talking to and proclaimed me killfiled.



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 22:52:12
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 03:13:47 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>> Loren Petrich writes:
>
>>>> but IBM does not seem to be taking OS/2 anywhere
>
>>> What seems to you is irrelevant.
>
>> Well where is Big Blue taking it then?
>
>Ask Big Blue.

They keep pretending it doesn't exist.



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                28-Nov-99 22:58:13
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:54:17 -0500, Marty <[e-mail]> chose
to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Dave Tholen wrote:
>>
>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>
>> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>>
>> >>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>>
>> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
>>
>> > Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>>
>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>> example.
>
>Hmm..
>FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
>executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
>Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
of
>this?"
>
>Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.


Since Tholen has shown up here I've ran a phone line to my COL box and
have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up. AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks
once and he answered every one of those posts with out suspecting.
More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 20:08:15
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-29-99, 12:40:02 AM, [e-mail] (sheldon) wrote regarding
Re: BeOS compared to Windows... (was Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS,
Linux Not Commecially Viable!):


> Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
> >sheldon wrote:
> >>  Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.

> >Well the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 was modest EXCEPT for the IE
integration,
> >purposely weaving it into the OS.  Win98 to Win98 SE is "substantial"
is the
> >definition is "True or real; not imaginary"  More commonly
substantial  means
> >"Considerable in importance"  In that case, absolutely not.

>  Umm, the Win98 release offered much more than just the integration of
IE.

>  Yes, primarily what it was was a release of Win95 with all kinds of
addons
> all bundled together.  Win98 supported FAT32, USB, television hooks,
and a
> bunch of other little tweaks.

I have Fat32 support on Windows95 OSR2.  Let's be honest about unique
Win98 features and features available in Windows95 and as free addons
to Windows95.  This is simply a marketing decision - how to market
incremental changes to Windows95.

"tweaks" are shipped as fixpacks (service packs to a windows NT user).
 If MS were consumer oriented company they'd offer service packs for
Windows95 rather than rolling them into new OS releases.


>  I honestly didn't find it worthwhile upgrading to myself so I did not
buy
> it.  However I did receive a free copy by attending a MS promotional
event.

Windows98 was panned in most reviews - both for the lack of unique
features and for poor reliability.  I'd recommend Windows98 SE for the
poor soul who's stuck with an early edition of Win98 and hasn't access
to Windows95 OSR2.


> >>  Besides IE was shipped with the OS as of Win95SP1 or so.

> >IE v1.0 was written by spyglass and the edition that was shipped with
Win95.  Even
> >Win95 OSR2, IE  wasn't engineered into the OS.  Win98 was the 1st
edition in which
> >IE was integrated into the OS.  Win98SE was as substantial as a
incremental
> >service pack.

>  No, IE v1.0 did not ship with Win95.  I believe it might have been
part of
> the Plus pack.  However some version of Win95, i don't recall if it
was
> after SP1 or OSR2 did ship with Win95 integrated.  That is, when you
> installed Win95 you got IE, there was no option during the install.

>  You are confusing the integration of the Explorer interface with
whether or
> not IE was part of the Win9x installation.  Completely different topic
> considering IE4 could be isntalled on top of Win95 and achieve the
same
> result.

No Sir.  MS's testimony was IE 1.0 was part of Windows95 v1.0000.  IE
is by default part of the OS and therefore IE is part of the OS
installation - adding new OS features and changing OS DLLs.  Sounds
nuts but that's their story and it matters since they control the OS
and installing IE is a serious OS modification - a service pack.

MS claims IE was always part of the OS and MS has changed the IE
installation process into an OS modification.  Installing IE 4.0 on
Windows95 is like adding an OS servicepack.

>  I don't see the point in arguing this further.  I have Win98
installed on
> my machine as a secondary OS, but my primary OS is Windows NT because
it is
> stable, and Win9x is not.

And I have Windows95 OSR2 on a lab systems are refuse to add any IE
edition or Windows98 since Windows95 OSR2 is the most backwards
compatible and reliable OS of all their OSs   Sadly as MS's lawyers
continue to decide their OS strategy, users will continue to be placed
3rd - behind lawers and profit.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 20:12:06
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES  E

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

Poor Kelly.

HPFS386 is 16-bit code from v1.0 days.

HPFS386 writes directly to the network card for fast server
performance, bypassing OS/2 protocols.  MS's Gordon Letwin authored
the filesystem.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-28-99, 11:50:16 PM, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote
regarding Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES
IT DOES  EXIST<<:


> These are OS/2 users.  If you haven't noticed, they're no better than
> anyone else.  Plenty of them distribute an illegal copy of hpfs386.exe
> around the newsgroups so that they can FINALLY have part of their file
> systems using 32-bit code (unlike that 16-bit code which IBM feels is
> 32-bit, hence their labelling of OS/2 as a 32-bit OS, you see...)

> Dave Tholen wrote:

> > Diablo writes:
> >
> > > I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
> > > And Post It Here
> >
> > Quite illegal, even if it existed.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             28-Nov-99 20:14:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Gabriel Morales <[e-mail]>

Timberwoof wrote:
>
> So what's
>
> "MacGUI is currently offline. It is presently being revamped" all about?
>
> Call me a radical, but I completely agree with those nuts who keep
> putting up those orange signs at freeway work sites:
>
> End Construction!

    Well, it's true! I am currently working on it! I had MacGUI up and
running before, so I don't want give people the impression that it's
just gone for good. It'll be back online given some more time. And it'll
be much better than before. Notice that I didn't put up any "Under
Construction" signs, although I could if you think that's a good idea...

    Anyway, enough off topic posts for now... :-)

--
Come visit my domain at http://www.concentric.net/~Togega/.

Gabriel Morales

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: ---- (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 20:17:12
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
---
These are OS/2 users.  If you haven't noticed, they're no better than
anyone else.  Plenty of them distribute an illegal copy of hpfs386.exe
around the newsgroups so that they can FINALLY have part of their file
systems using 32-bit code (unlike that 16-bit code which IBM feels is
32-bit, hence their labelling of OS/2 as a 32-bit OS, you see...)
----

HPFS386 is not 32-bit.  It is 1.x code, 16-bit and is only useful for
servers since it directly writes to the network card.

I have some things to say about your references to "IQs", "desperate"
and "stupid".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-28-99, 11:48:43 PM, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote
regarding Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list:


> I don't know about the other "Windows advocates" as you call them, but
> I'm beginning to sense a different sort of conspiracy from certain
OS/2
> users whose quantity of brain cells almost matches their IQ (which
must
> be nearly 20).
...
> These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying
to
> tell the truth.

> And they're equally stupid and more willing to blindly chuck in
anybody
> who they feel should be in the group even if they are not by any means
a
> total windows advocate.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Nov-99 20:32:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-28-99, 4:50:28 PM, "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>
wrote regarding Re: BeOS compared to Windows... (was Re: Judge Jackson
Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!):


> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> > sheldon wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
> > >
> > > >Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > >> news:[e-mail]...
> > > >> > That's because the upgrade from Win98 to Win98 SE is a joke...
> There
> > > >> really
> > > >> > isn't anthing different. OS 9 may appear very similar to OS 8.6 at
> first
> > > >> > glance, but underneath there are substantial changes made. Not the
> case
> > > >> for
> > > >> > Win98 SE...
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually you aren't quite correct there.  The changes to Win98 with
> the
> > > >> service pack added are substantial but not really visible to the
> user.
> > >
> > > >Substantial changes -- if one is a lawyer.  Integrating IE into the
OS
> took a
> > > >lot of work and delayed the OS.  It also reduced performance and
> reliability.
> > >
> > >  Odd.  We were talking about the upgrade from Win98 to Win98SE.
> >
> > Well the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 was modest EXCEPT for the IE
> integration,
> > purposely weaving it into the OS.  Win98 to Win98 SE is "substantial"
is
> the
> > definition is "True or real; not imaginary"  More commonly substantial
> means
> > "Considerable in importance"  In that case, absolutely not.
> >
> >         1.Of, relating to, or having substance; material.

> OK got that one.

> >         2.True or real; not imaginary.

> It does exist.

> >         3.Solidly built; strong.

> It can't lift much.

Crashes often too.


> >         4.Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.

> Tastes rather bland.

> >         5.Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or
extent:
> won by a
> >           substantial margin.

> Bingo,  This update corrects, and combines all the fixes and
improvements
> developed since the release of Win98, including the security issues,
it does
> improve filesystem performance.  Corrects some minor Dial up
Networking
> issues and all the Y2K fixes, both packs.

Trivial changes to the OS.
Win98SE and Windows98 in general has been poorly received by the
MS-philic media.  Y2K fixes in 1998 software are at best defects.  Any
product shipping in 1998 that has Y2K issues is defective.  Any OS
with security issues is defective.


> >         6.Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

> It didn't have any money.

:)

> Installing IE4 with desktop update and browser enhancements on 95 is
exactly
> the same level of integration as the preinstalled version on 98.

> Win98SE is a Service Pack.

A servicepack is a servicepack.

Win98SE is a marketing gimmick to raise money rather than lose money
fixing a rushed-to-market product.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:40:17
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: <[e-mail]>

On 20 Nov 1999 06:56:58 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
>
>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
>
>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
>
>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen pasting in
>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond to the
>> post.
>
>Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've
also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwed up the correct attributions.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the
problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as Marty also screwed up the correct attributions the real
reason?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
>
>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
>
>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
>
>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen pasting in
>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond to the
>> post.
>
>Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the URL and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the
same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
>
>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
>
>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
>
>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
>
>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen pasting in
>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond to the post.
>
>Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>

Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

-----------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Yes, the Aaron Dimsdale that
you haven't heard from in a
long time.
Is this really only the second
Tholen Digest? I doubt it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               28-Nov-99 23:57:10
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:54:17 -0500, Marty <[e-mail]> chose
> to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >>
> >> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
> >>
> >> > Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
> >>
> >> >>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
him, ...
> >>
> >> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
> >>
> >> > Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
> >> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
> >>
> >> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
> >> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> >> example.
> >
> >Hmm..
> >FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
> >Unfairness like not examining evidence?
> >Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
> >executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to
boot!"
> >Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through
all of
> >this?"
> >
> >Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>
> Since Tholen has shown up here I've ran a phone line to my COL box and
> have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up. AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks
> once and he answered every one of those posts with out suspecting.
> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!

That's meerly par for the course for Tholen.  Over here in COOA, he has
proceeded to respond to song lyrics (line by line in some cases), deny that he
had done so, then deny that they were song lyrics.  He's also had an ongoing
infantile game with Eric Bennett in which Dave pretends that he is responding
with Eliza generated phrases, even though it is obvious that Eliza would not
have generated many of the responses he has posted.

Here's a few examples for your amusement:
Song #1:
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.
506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=7

Song #2:
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538259667&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.
506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=9

Song #3:
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538285665&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.
506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=11

Song #4:
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.
506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=14

Song #5:  which received several positive comments from other members of COOA
and is a personal favorite of mine
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.
506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=19

And one of Tholen's more recent postings in his infantile game with Eric
Bennett:
http://x34.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=551843330.2&CONTEXT=943850504.1821966368&h
itnum=0

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:47:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 27 Oct 1999 03:02:56 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Marty writes:
>
>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.
>
>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
>What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>better than you, Marty?

Irrelevant.

>>> Interestingly, there are no responses from Mike [Timbol] today in
>>> that thread.  The silence is damning.
>
>> Damn him for having better things to do.
>
>Actually, I wrote too soon.  Only moments after writing the above,
>two postings from Mike showed up on our server, much later in the
>day than has been his practice during the recent thread.

Balderdash.

>> You've obviously jumped the gun in your uneasy impatience waiting
>> for his reply.
>
>There's no impatience on my part, Marty.

Balderdash.

>> Relax Dave.
>
>What makes you think I'm not relaxed, Marty?

Poppycock.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:48:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:00:44 -0400, Joe Malloy wrote:

>Something along the lines of a <[e-mail]> tholened:
>
>> Actually, I wrote too soon.
>
>That's true of your very first posting on uselessnet, Tholen, and it's never
>stopped you before, so why should it now?

What alleged uselessnet, Joe?

>>Only moments after writing the above,
>> two postings from Mike showed up on our server, much later in the
>> day than has been his practice during the recent thread.
>
>I see, now you'd like to dictate *when* your numerous opponents (the ATB,
>the Anti-Tholen Brigade) are allowed to post.  Sheesh, what a small mind you
>must have!

What alleged opponents, Joe?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 04:49:02
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Stephen Green" <[e-mail]>

The poor guy would probably be contravening some WTO law against single
sourcing in one state !!!


"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:383d3aa9$5$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/24/99 at 04:05 PM,
>    [e-mail] ([e-mail]) said:
>
>
> > Also perfectly legal here.  There are anti-discrimination laws on the
> > books here, so I -can't- not sell to you based on, say, your race|color.
> > However, if, say, you're just way too fat, I -can- refuse to sell you
> > more cookies.  Basically, over here, anything that isn't expressly
> > against the law is perfectly legal.
>
> Tell that to the restaurant owner in Philadelphia who were fined because
> they refused service to a blind couple because they had guide dogs. Tell
> that to the merchant in Philadelphia who was fined because he refused to
> sell condoms to gays.
>
> The courts more and more extend anti-discrimination statutes based on
> "legislative intent" rather than the specific wording in the written law.
>
> And as far as price discrimination goes, a merchant operating entirely
> within one state apparently is not covered by the Federal law covering
> companies engaged in interstate commerce. However, the Supreme Court of
> the US has expanded the meaning of interstate commerce so far as to make
> anyone in business subject, even Pizza parlors since the ingredients they
> use were made out of state.
>
> About the only way a pizza parlor would be exempt from Federal regulation
> today would be if he built his store out of wood from trees grown in New
> Jersey and bricks he made himself from local mud baked in a New Jersey
> cave using New Jersey grown wood for the fire, raised his own wheat,
> tomatoes, and whatever else goes into his sauce, raised his own cows
> purely on New Jersey pasture and made his own cheese, got his salt from
> drying New Jersey saltwater, etc. He wouldn't be able to use boxes, would
> have to have a wood fired oven since electricity and gas are interstate
> activities, and make his own wooden spatulas, spoons, etc.
>
> Even then he would be in trouble since undoubtedly his wood burning oven
> would be in violation of EPA rules against air pollution. For good or ill,
> the concept of a purely state matter has been all but eliminated by a
> combination of congressional acts and court rulings.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:49:10
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:

>Dave Tholen wrote:
>>
>> Marty writes:
>>
>> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.
>>
>> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
>>
>> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>>
>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>> better than you, Marty?
>
>Reading comprehension problems?

Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
comprehension problems, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:50:10
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 28 Oct 1999 00:15:39 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Marty writes:
>
>>>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.
>
>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>> better than you, Marty?
>
>> Reading comprehension problems?
>
>Obviously not, Marty.  I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.

Having reading comprehension problems, Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:51:11
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:53:05 -0400, Marty wrote:

>Dave Tholen wrote:
>>
>> Marty writes:
>>
>> >>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's
part.
>>
>> >>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>>
>> >>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>>
>> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>> >> better than you, Marty?
>>
>> > Reading comprehension problems?
>>
>> Obviously not, Marty.
>
>You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement, Dave.  I
>say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you think
>my eyes are green?"

Balderdash.

>> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.
>
>Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.  I'll spell it out for the
>feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my spelling of the word "blatant".
>Your question is a non sequitur.
>
>To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying, nothing
>has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to identify an
>alleged "lie/game" any better than me.  Now didn't that make a lot of
>sense?

Poppycock.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:56:13
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 28 Oct 1999 00:56:06 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Marty writes:
>
>>>>>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's
part.
>
>>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
>>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
>>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>>>> better than you, Marty?
>
>>>> Reading comprehension problems?
>
>>> Obviously not, Marty.
>
>> You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement, Dave.
>
>Incorrect, Marty.  You were thanking some "Mike" for the alleged example
>that followed.

Incorrect, Dave. He was thanking some "Mike" for allegedly helping him
to spell above kindergarten level.

>> I say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you think
>> my eyes are green?"
>
>Where did I allegedly do that, Marty?

Snipping relevant information again, Dave?

>>> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.
>
>> Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.
>
>On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.  You were thanking some "Mike"
>for the alleged example that followed.

On the contrary, it's irrelevant, Dave. He was thanking Mike for
allegedly helping him to spell above kindergarten level.

>> I'll spell it out for the feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my
>> spelling of the word "blatant".
>
>Your sentence wasn't dealing with a misspelling, Marty.  Your sentence
>was dealing with an alleged example of a "lie/game" on my part.

Irrelevant, Dave.

>> Your question is a non sequitur.
>
>Your reference to a misspelling above is a non sequitur, Marty.

Snipping relevant information again, Dave?

>> To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying,
>
>On what basis do you claim that I'm "crying", Marty?  I see you just
>can't resist lying about me.

On the basis that you were crying.

>> nothing has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to
>> identify an alleged "lie/game" any better than me.
>
>So why did you refer to him in a sentence dealing with an allleged
>example of a "lie/game" on my part, Marty?

Because he helped Marty spell above kindergarten level, Dave.

>> Now didn't that make a lot of sense?
>
>Your reference to Mike did not make a lot of sense, Marty.

Balderdash, Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 04:58:04
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 03:35:22
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:18:31 -0400, Marty wrote:

>Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote, in
>contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.
>
>One more time for the feeble-minded <snip>

What alleged feeble-minded, Marty?

>I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even Tholen may
>catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.

What alleged Tholen, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             29-Nov-99 07:10:06
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail]

In article <81so06$e3q$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Loren Petrich writes:
>
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
> >>> much.
>
> >> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
> >> him, ...
>
> > Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> Not at all.  The "jerks" are the ones who try to foist their FUD,
> misinformation, and illogic on this newsgroup,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Loren and Karel, if you are reading this, take note. In the
"Navigator 4.7 Available" thread, Dave Tholen wrote the following:

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"

He was referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an OS/2 self-extracting
archive containing either the Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 runtime or the Java
1.1.8 for OS/2 Development Kit (I forget which, exactly, and it doesn't
really matter at this point).

The statement is wrong.  One can extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
using WinZip, which is to say:

1)  One does *NOT* have to run the executable file.

2)  One does *NOT* have to be in OS/2 to extract the contents.

Dave Tholen posted misinformation, guys.  What's even worse is that he
posted this on October 29, 1999, which was four weeks (!!) ago, and has
yet to either retract or admit to the error.

> and then react to my counterings with invective.

Who wouldn't?

Here is my challenge to both of you:

Disagree with Tholen on a technical issue, and voice said disagreement.

As long as you are chatting about Sci-Fi and Monty Python, Dave can be
quite friendly, I suppose.

But go ahead and peruse the "Navigator 4.7" thread in Deja or Remarq,
and see the lengths to which Tholen will go in order to avoid admitting
this mistake.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 08:21:02
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Jerry Prather write:
> (Lars P Ormberg) writes:

> :>"Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be open
to
> :>whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received by those
who
> :>wish to receive it.
>
> Being a rock hard conservative, politically, I'd like to agree
> with you.  But we have this little problem with laws and
> government.  Until we manage to get out from under the burden of
> an overweaning government, we have to live with those laws.
>
> The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
> M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".

How?  Does MS send people to your home, tie up your family, hold a match
over a gas canister, and force you to sign on the dotted line for Windows
2000?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 08:22:06
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bennie Nelson write:
> Jerry Prather wrote:

> > The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
> > M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".  I have to buy
> > their fried chicken/windows even though I immediately do a Format
> > C: when I get home.   ...and just try to get your money back when
> > you tell them that you don't want it!  This is what is in
> > restraint of trade - I don't have a choice!
>
> The main problem is being obscured by examples that do not apply.  MS
> is a MONOPOLY.

No, it isn't.

> When a business becomes a monopoly

Unless government gives it a hand, a business cannot become a monopoly.

> the media; all of the utterances from the MS PR Machine are meant to
> obfuscate these truths as specified in Judge Jackson's Findings of
> Fact:

The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 08:22:17
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
> On <81f1ih$ojn$[e-mail]>, on 11/23/99 at 09:39 PM,
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>
> > "Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
> > open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received
> > by those who wish to receive it.
>
> You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
> States.

Yes.  So much for "home of the free".

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 08:35:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example
of
>> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Illogically,
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I would
>> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had not
>> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
over
>> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>> >>
>> >> Typical invective, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>>
>> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
>
>Don't you know, Aaron?

No.

>> Are you a two-year-old?
>
>Irrelevant.

On the contrary, quite relevant.

>> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>
>What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is relevant.

Incorrect, Marty.

>> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> >> >> >> find embarassing:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>> >> >> > question?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.
>> >>
>> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >
>> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
statement
>> >above.
>>
>> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
>See above.

Note: No comment.

>> >> >> > Here you go:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
>> >> >> Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >
>> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>>
>> Self-evident.
>
>Incorrect.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game"
any
>> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
>> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's painfully
>> >> >obvious by now anyway.
>> >>
>> >> No comment.
>> >
>> >Note: no comment.
>>
>> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
>
>Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.

I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.

>> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
>> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't work.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
>Not at all, Aaron.

Poppycock.

>> >> >> > The rest of us have.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
>> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
>> >> >
>> >> >Quite possible indeed.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
>> >
>> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>>
>> Self-evident.
>
>Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own Balderdash
>garden.

Balderdash, Marty. I have no Balderdash garden to tend.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 08:38:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:50:56 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:55 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:27:54 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:18:31 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote, in
>> >> >> >contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >One more time for the feeble-minded <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged feeble-minded, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >See what I mean?
>> >>
>> >> What alleged meaning, Marty?
>> >
>> >See what I mean?
>>
>> No, Marty, I don't. Had I seen what you meant, I would not have asked
>> you of your meaning.
>
>See what I mean?

No, Marty, I don't.

>> >> >> >I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>> >> >> >Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even Tholen
may
>> >> >> >catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged Tholen, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
>nowhere to be seen!

Balderdash.

>Note that you have yet to explain why knowing to which
>Tholen I'm referring is not irrelevant.

You erroneously presuppose that I think that knowing to which Tholen you
are referring is not irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 08:41:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:48:52 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:26:10 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:53:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
Dave's part.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Obviously not, Marty.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement,
Dave.  I
>> >> >> >say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you
think
>> >> >> >my eyes are green?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Balderdash.
>> >> >
>> >> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Why,
>> >> >nowhere to be seen!
>> >>
>> >> Typical invective.
>> >
>> >Balderdash, Aaron.
>>
>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash garden.

What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?

>> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>> >
>> >Reading comprehension problems?
>>
>> Typical invective, Marty.
>
>Incorrect.

Poppycock.

>> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
>Reading comprehension problems?

Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

>> Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>Incorrect.

Incorrect.

>> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>>
>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash garden.

What alleged Balderdash garden, Marty?

>> >> >> >> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.  I'll spell it out for
the
>> >> >> >feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my spelling of the word
"blatant".
>> >> >> >Your question is a non sequitur.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying,
nothing
>> >> >> >has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to identify
an
>> >> >> >alleged "lie/game" any better than me.  Now didn't that make a lot
of
>> >> >> >sense?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Poppycock.
>> >> >
>> >> >How ironic, coming from someone who is actively tending his own
Balderdash
>> >> >garden.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> I see no "Balderdash garden" above, Marty.
>
>See above.

I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 08:42:28
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:46:41 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:20:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:22:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
Dave's part.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game"
any
>> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
>> >> >> comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >How ironic.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged irony, Marty?
>> >
>> >I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
>>
>> What alleged question, Marty?
>
>Reading comprehension problems?

I seem to have missed the question in previous posts. I stand corrected.

>> You haven't asked me a question.
>
>That's a lie.

I seem to have missed the question in previous posts. I stand corrected.

>> On the> contrary, it was you who failed to answer the question.
>
>Incorrect.  You'll find my answer above.

You haven't answered my question. What alleged irony?

>> What alleged irony?
>
>I see you still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.

I don't have reading comprehension problems, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 08:44:11
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:15
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:45:06 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:27:29 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:50:17 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Dave Tholen consulted a more enlightened intellect than his own to
bring forth
>> >> >the following logical argument:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But even that wouldn't completely solve the
problem,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you've also screwed up the correct
attributions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely
solve the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem as Marty also screwed up the correct
attributions
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the real reason?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen
pasting in
>> >> >> >>>>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond
to the
>> >> >> >>>>> post.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> >> >
>> >> >Enjoying your hypocritical "infantile game" spewing forth "baby-talk
tripe" (by
>> >> >your own admission) at tholenbot, Dave?
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "infantile game", Marty?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> I see no "infantile game" above, Marty.
>
>Reading comprehension problems?

No.

>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the URL and
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the line that follows have the same level of
indentation, yet
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that
follows have
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same indentation yet Marty wrote one and you
wrote the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other explain anything else?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going
through all this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through
all this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all
this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen
pasting in
>> >> >> >>>>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond
to the post.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> >> >
>> >> >Enjoying your hypocritical "infantile game" spewing forth "baby-talk
tripe" (by
>> >> >your own admission) at tholenbot, Dave?
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "infantile game", Marty?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> I see no infantile game above, Marty.
>
>Reading comprehension problems?

No.

>> >> What alleged "baby-talk tripe", Marty?
>> >
>> >See below.
>>
>> I see nothing below, Marty.
>
>I see you've removed the relevant evidence.  How convenient.

That's a lie. The evidence was removed by you, not I.

Snipping relevant information again, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Nov-99 01:46:24
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Glenn Davies <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 08:22:12 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

>As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bennie Nelson write:
>> Jerry Prather wrote:
>
>> > The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
>> > M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".  I have to buy
>> > their fried chicken/windows even though I immediately do a Format
>> > C: when I get home.   ...and just try to get your money back when
>> > you tell them that you don't want it!  This is what is in
>> > restraint of trade - I don't have a choice!
>>
>> The main problem is being obscured by examples that do not apply.  MS
>> is a MONOPOLY.
>
>No, it isn't.

It has been ruled to be an monopoly under US law. Which doesn't mean
it is illegal.

>
>> When a business becomes a monopoly
>
>Unless government gives it a hand, a business cannot become a monopoly.

Time to sign up for some buisness and economic classes for next term.
Business's can become a monopoly even in non-regulated industries -
visit a small town and look around sometime.

>
>> the media; all of the utterances from the MS PR Machine are meant to
>> obfuscate these truths as specified in Judge Jackson's Findings of
>> Fact:
>
>The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.

As if you have even read it let alone understand it. Your previous
posts show that you know very little about the history of the computer
industry.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: via Internet Direct - http://www.mydirect.com/ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Nov-99 10:47:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

I'm forced to agree with you here. You seem to bash all operating
systems with equal, mind-numbing force. Could we refer to you from now
on as "Troll-without-a-cause"?

BTW, what's "hoggy"?

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:39:06, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Excuse me?  It seems there's more than one blind dipshit around here.
> Unless I'm mistaken I don't recall ONCE supporting Win2000 or even thinking
> highly of it.  As I've said before it's oversized, hoggy, and will
> undoubtedly be very overpriced and I'm certainly not going to be buying it!
>
> Kindly be so kind and direct your attacks to the appropriate people and
> don't start spreading rumors about others.
>
> William Sonna wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:47:06, "David T. Johnson"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> > > Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> > > more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> > > court defeats?
> >
> > I'd say they seem a bit upset and prone to unwarranted tirades.  But
> > since they don't use OS/2 (where bad news is routine), they are not
> > accustomed to the kind of insecurity that the 1-2 punch of Gates
> > putting Win'98 on the chopping block and the Judge putting Microsoft
> > on the chopping block brings to their computing lives.
> >
> > What they fail to grasp is that three months from now, Win '2000 will
> > be out, the verdict will be under appeal, Gates will be raking in the
> > bucks as always, and they will be happily spending their money new
> > hardware and software to run on the OS of the future.
>

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Nov-99 10:47:01
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:48:19, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:

>
> >One positive thing (other than the robustness) that keeps me with Warp
> >is the WPS. It is a very powerful, intuitive and easy to learn OOUI.
> >In fact, it is AFAIK at the moment the only OOUI in existence. ...
> [on there being none like it]
>
>     I'm not likely to use OS/2 anytime soon, but I'd be happy to at
> least try out a Workspace Shell clone for MacOS X, if one ever comes out.
> I'm not sure if I would be able to contribute to such a project, but if
> one got started...
>
The issue has been discussed at length here (and in more sane groups
as well). Problem is that the functionality of the Workplace Shell is
intimately linked to Warp's innards, including the HPFS file system
(the WPS can work from FAT, but it is a - ahem! - kludge). Warp
contains code from so many places that, even _if_ IBM wanted to
release the source, they first need the agreement of a zillion other
companies, including Microsoft (who are, as we all know, adamant
supporters of the open source model). Ironically, as Mike Trettel
pointed out, the only other file system in existence that supports
extended attributes is... NTFS. And a port of the WPS to NT is waayyy
below the last point on my wishlist...

Regularly, the idea of a cleanroom FreeOS/2 pops up. There might be
something in it. IMHO, the overall problem is that OS/2 is just too
damn' good to give people an incentive to make a new one <G>.

>     MacOS X is, in a way, not "really" the MacOS, but an updated
> version of NeXTStep with the old MacOS run in virtual-machine fashion,
> something like OS/2's support for DOS and Win16.

They should have called it MachOS X <G>.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Nov-99 10:47:04
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:52:49, David Sutherland
<sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:17:13 -0500, Bob Germer
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 08:13 AM,
> >   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:
> >
> >
> >> And you can't seem to get that kill-filter figured out numerous days
> >> after you claimed to have already set it up. And you expect us to
> >> believe that you setup and maintain computers? Riiiiiiiiight.
> >> Suuuuuuure. Yep. We believe it.
> >
> >I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
> >grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
> >machines.
> >
>
> Yet you took the time to set up your .sig on this other persons
> machine, and got it character perfect
>
[snip]
>
> Hmmm.....odd that you wouldn't take the time to set up a kill filter
> which you can easily reverse, but you *do* take the time to set up
> your signature file *exactly* as on your usual machine.
>

He could have used that computer before and left a textfile with his
sig.
Or he has a floppy with his .sig with him...

Nah, that couldn't be it. It's far too simple.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Nov-99 10:47:03
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:01:24, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:

> In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-6PZECduxo9Gk@localhost>,
> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
> >wrote:
>
> >>     And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
>
> >That depends. For frustrated Windows users, maybe. But for Microsoft,
> >that now has a vast market of gullible money-spenders, who knows? It's
> >in their interest to make Windows just crappy enough, and have people
> >believe that it is everybody's but Microsoft's fault. It's called good
> >marketing, and there are people in this newsgroup who will actually
> >praise Microsoft for doing such a thing.
>
>     Actually, what one is accustomed to often plays a large part in
> making such judgments. Consider some anecdotes from the xUSSR in the
> 1960's and 1970's, when it started accepting lots of tourists and when
> lots of upper-ranking Soviets started traveling abroad.
>
>     A Soviet official went abroad and visited a US(?) car factory. He
> asked why his hosts went through all the trouble to round up cars to
> impress him. To him, those cars must have been yet another Potemkin Village.
>
>     Some guests from the US or western Europe asked their hosts if
> they felt any hardship in having to get hard currency. Their hosts
> responded that they are sure that their guests had had to do that. But
> the joke here is that their guests' countries' currency is *already* hard
> currency.
>
>     Thus, many people accustomed to the crankiness of M$ software may
> be like all those Soviet citizens accustomed to Potemkin Villages and
> having to acquire hard currency.
>
>     Source: "Russia: the Power and the Glory"(?), by someone whose
> name I don't recall; also, there is Hedrick Smith's "The Russians"(?).
>
Heh.
"Who needs drugs when we've got reality?"
(if this isn't a famous quote already, I hereby claim it)

> >Microsoft MVP -- Not!
>
>     Yes, I know about that scandal where M$ fired some of them.

They went all quiet and sad and sulky, so they hired them back <G>.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 11:29:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Loren and Karel, if you are reading this, take note.

Indeed, they should.

> In the "Navigator 4.7 Available" thread, Dave Tholen wrote the
> following:

In that thread, Timbol responded with "Bullshit" to a factual statement
about OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implementing Java 1.2 functionality.  I countered
Timbol's misinformation.

> He was referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an OS/2 self-extracting
> archive containing either the Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 runtime or the Java
> 1.1.8 for OS/2 Development Kit (I forget which, exactly, and it doesn't
> really matter at this point).

That's the file containing classes.zip, which Timbol tried to cite as
evidence for the lack of Java 2 security classes in the JDK.
Unfortunately for his argument, the functionality of the Java 2
security classes was implemented in the file secma.zip, which was not
part of the javainuf.exe archive.

> The statement is wrong.

Timbol's "bullshit" claim is wrong.  His so-called evidence in
classes.zip and javainuf.exe is wrong.

> One can extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip,

No unzipper can magically make the proper bytes appear for an
incomplete file, Curtis, including WinZip.

> which is to say:
>
> 1)  One does *NOT* have to run the executable file.

Which is to say that WinZip isn't superior to InfoZip, as some claimed.

> 2)  One does *NOT* have to be in OS/2 to extract the contents.

Which is to say that it doesn't make OS/2 look bad, as some claimed.

> Dave Tholen posted misinformation, guys.

Timbol posted misinformation, Curtis.  I countered that misinformation.

> What's even worse is that he posted this on October 29, 1999, which
> was four weeks (!!) ago, and has yet to either retract or admit to
> the error.

Timbol's misinformation was posted even longer ago than that, Curtis.
Where is his retraction or error admission?  Why haven't you gone
after him with as much vigor as you've gone after me?

> Who wouldn't?

Those who prefer to use logic for their arguments.

> Here is my challenge to both of you:
>
> Disagree with Tholen on a technical issue, and voice said disagreement.

Why would they want to do that, Curtis?

> As long as you are chatting about Sci-Fi and Monty Python, Dave can be
> quite friendly, I suppose.

Why are your categories so restrictive, Curtis?

> But go ahead and peruse the "Navigator 4.7" thread in Deja or Remarq,
> and see the lengths to which Tholen will go in order to avoid admitting
> this mistake.

Go ahead and peruse that thread and see the lengths to which Timbol will
go to spread his misinformation.  Then watch Bass jump in with his
invective, his illogic about making OS/2 look bad, Marty's "infantile
game", and Lucien's attempt to cover up his own illogic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 11:48:01
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451512

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty's back.  From time to time, it sounds like he's trying to have
a serious discussion, but I know better, having seen him use Eliza
when I was still responding seriously.  Of course, there's really
nothing new to his responses.  He justs keeps ignoring my previous
responses.  Here's today's digest:

1> More of his infantile game.  No surprise there.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Typical unsubstantiated "invective".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Irrelevant, as technology still has its limits.  Evidence of this
1> is the fact that the article in question did not show up on DejaNews.
1> But I guess Tholen expects all news archives to function the same way,
1> just as he idiotically and ineptly expects all archiving tools to
1> function the same way.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Apparently it is, as no one else has a problem accessing the evidence
1> in question.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> And there is no reason to care, as the evidence in question does exist
1> and proves Tholen wrong on yet another point, namely, "Yet to look at
1> the contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2
1> system to boot!"  Here's the evidence in question:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Irrelevant, as Dave has ignored the evidence presented on other
1> servers as well.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Perhaps Dave's "evidnece" is something different than evidence which
1> can show that he is right, but no evidence he has presented shows him
1> to be correct.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> And they can witness Dave's hypocrisy, "Or are you really that idiotic?"
1> And Dave's infantile game, "Is it because of your sex life that your
1> are going through all of this?"  And Dave's numerous errors, "Yet to
1> look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and on an
1> OS/2 system to boot!"  And Dave's avoidance of addressing the issues,
1> "I've already answered that question, Lucien."  And the list goes on...

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> What he has "effectively" claimed is irrelevant.  What he has claimed
1> is relevant.  Of course, this isn't the first time Dave has made an
1> unwarranted extrapolation.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> And other can witness Dave's ineptness at defending his claims by
1> failing to download the file in question, then failing to realized it
1> after attempting to unzip it.  All this he does, after claiming that
1> he himself had full access to the file in question.  Now that's
1> laughable.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> And others can again witness Dave's hypocrisy by failing to address
1> the numerous issues presented to him by feebly attempting to dodge
1> them with irrelevant remarks.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Now that really addresses the issue:
1> "Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence, and discover that
1> while I'm addressing the issue, you're making personal attacks."

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Of course, Dave has still failed to realize that his incomplete copy
1> of the file is complete only in its lack of relevance.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Of course Dave hasn't seen any evidence, not even the globally
1>available URL or the evidence on remarq.com.  No surprise there.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Hmm.. wrong beliefs like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must
1> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Thus Tholen's justification for not examining evidence.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Why, here's one:  "Yet, to look at the contents, one must have run
1> the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> So if Tholen had not implied that, then his statements were empty,
1> hollow, pointless, and irrelevant.  I guess I see his point there.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Hmm..
2> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
2> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
2> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have
2> run the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2
2> system to boot!"  Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that
2> you are going through all of this?"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> That's meerly par for the course for Tholen.  Over here in COOA, he
3> has proceeded to respond to song lyrics (line by line in some cases),
3> deny that he had done so, then deny that they were song lyrics.  He's
3> also had an ongoing infantile game with Eric Bennett in which Dave
3> pretends that he is responding with Eliza generated phrases, even
3> though it is obvious that Eliza would not have generated many of the
3> responses he has posted.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> How hypocritical, or as Dave would say (and has said numerous times),
4> "Or is he really that idiotic?"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

5> Note that you have yet to explain why knowing to which Tholen I'm
5> referring is not irrelevant.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         29-Nov-99 11:49:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451512

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Yet another person has demonstrated that he uses this newsgroup for
entertainment purposes.  Here's the inaugural Dimsdale digest:

1> Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

1> Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

1> Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

2> Irrelevant.

2> Balderdash.

2> Balderdash.

2> Poppycock.

3> What alleged uselessnet, Joe?

3> What alleged opponents, Joe?

4> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
4> comprehension problems, Marty?

5> Having reading comprehension problems, Dave?

6> Balderdash.

6> Poppycock.

7> Incorrect, Dave. He was thanking some "Mike" for allegedly helping
7> him to spell above kindergarten level.

7> Snipping relevant information again, Dave?

7> On the contrary, it's irrelevant, Dave. He was thanking Mike for
7> allegedly helping him to spell above kindergarten level.

7> Irrelevant, Dave.

7> Snipping relevant information again, Dave?

7> On the basis that you were crying.

7> Because he helped Marty spell above kindergarten level, Dave.

7> Balderdash, Dave.

8> What alleged Tholen, Marty?

9> Typical invective and irrelevant, Dave.

9> Balderdash, Dave.

9> It is you who chose to delete the text to which you are referring, Dave.

9> Typical invective and irrelevant, Dave.

9> Balderdash, Dave.

9> It is you who chose to delete the evidence, Dave.

9> Typical invective, Dave.

9> Irrelevant.

10> Having reading comprehension problems, Dave?

10> Irrelevant, Dave.

10> No comment.

10> Typical invective, coming from a hypocrite. No surprise there.

10> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?

10> No comment.

10> No comment.

10> Snipping in true Eric "Snip first, ask questions later" Bennett form.

10> What alleged excerpt, Dave?

10> You misspelled "your".

10> Misuse of English language, Dave.

10> No comment.

10> No comment.

10> No comment.

10> Your embarassment, Dave.

10> Your embarassment, Dave.

10> No comment.

11> Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

11> Enjoying your chat with Eric, Dave?

12> You erroneously presuppose that I think that knowing to which
12> Tholen you are referring is not irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 11:25:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Csaba Raduly)

[e-mail] (Lars P Ormberg) wrote in
<81td1g$9gr$[e-mail]>:

>As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Jerry Prather write:
>> (Lars P Ormberg) writes:
>
>> :>"Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
>> :>open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only
>> :>received by those who wish to receive it.
>>
>> Being a rock hard conservative, politically, I'd like to agree
>> with you.  But we have this little problem with laws and
>> government.  Until we manage to get out from under the burden of
>> an overweaning government, we have to live with those laws.
>>
>> The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
>> M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".
>
>How?  Does MS send people to your home, tie up your family, hold a match
>over a gas canister, and force you to sign on the dotted line for
>Windows 2000?
>

No, but they say to the PC vendors: preload WinWhatever on EVERY machine
you sell, OR ELSE we won't give you WinWhatever OEM licenses and you'll be
out of business in no time.

If that isn't An Offer They Can't Refuse in the Don Vito Corleone style,
then I don't know what is.

And of course PC bendors preload WinWhatever on every PC they sell, and you
have to pay for it regardless of what you run on that machine (Linux, Be,
OS/2, Solaris, FreeDOS, ...)

Csaba
--
Csaba Raduly,    Software Developer (OS/2),    Sophos Anti-Virus
mailto:[e-mail]            http://www.sophos.com/
US Support +1 888 SOPHOS 9            UK Support [phone]
Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: SOPHOS Plc (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:06:09
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81s8ka$g8b$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 05:00 PM,
   "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:

> I would agree that Apple didn't 'steal' the Xerox UI, but you should not
> accept MacKiDo's claims that Microsoft 'stole' DOS, either. In both
> cases the companies dealt very shrewdly and got the better end of the
> deal.

Well, Seattle Computer would beg to disagree since they successfully sued
MS for ripping off DOS. Since it was in bankruptcy at the time the suit
was settled, it agreed to a settlement of less than a million dollars just
before the jury was about to award many times that amount. When
interviewed after they were dismissed, the jurors told reporters they were
arguing between 100 and 70 million dollars.

Tim Patterson, the Seattle Computer employee who did the actual work on
DOS also got a sweetheart job at MS after the suit was settled.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:10:14
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81td3k$9gr$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 08:22 AM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> > The main problem is being obscured by examples that do not apply.  MS
> > is a MONOPOLY.

> No, it isn't.

What are you smoking, snorting, or shooting? The U.S. Courts have
determined that MS is a monopoly.

> > When a business becomes a monopoly

> Unless government gives it a hand, a business cannot become a monopoly.

Again the question. The U.S. Government does not establish monopolies.

> > the media; all of the utterances from the MS PR Machine are meant to
> > obfuscate these truths as specified in Judge Jackson's Findings of
> > Fact:

> The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.

You are really stoned out. The finding of fact is the reasoned judgement
of a United States District Court Judge. The facts he cites are derived
from testimony given live before him.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:24:27
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 01:23 AM,
   Jim Frost <[e-mail]> said:


> If you're thinking that Microsoft somehow destroyed CP/M through their
> might in the market you just don't remember what it was like.  Microsoft
> was a pretty small player in those days.  Gates just played the cards
> really, really well -- and I for one applaud him for taking IBM down.
> We all benefitted.

Taking IBM down? You really are badly misinformed. IBM is many, many times
larger than MicroSoft. IBM still garners more revenue each year from
software than MS.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:13:08
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81td4a$9gr$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 08:22 AM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> > > "Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
> > > open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received
> > > by those who wish to receive it.
> >
> > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
> > States.

> Yes.  So much for "home of the free".

You are the type of absolute insane idiot who gives Canadians a bad name.
We in the United States have more freedom than even you do. We also
respect the rights of our many minorities by requiring owners of
businesses to serve all comers regardless of race, color, creed, national
origin, marital status, etc.

One does not have to open his home to the public. The owner of a building
with less than 4 apartments may discriminate in choosing tenants so long
as the owner occupies a portion of the building.

If your country allows discrimination in public accomodations, then it is
not a free country for minorities. Your freedom requires you to only use
French on signs, in display windows, etc. in Quebec.

No American is forced to pay taxes to support an unelected head of state
who lives 3,000 miles away and only sets foot in the country every decade
or less.

And no American is required to pay for sub-standard, second rate,
government run health care whether or not he or she is willing to accept
it. There are towns from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the US-Canadian
border where US doctors are making millions of dollars a year from
Canadians who are willing to pay them for services they supposedly already
paid the Canadian government for. Medical offices are the principal
commercial activity of many small border towns. In some cases, there are
more doctors' offices than residents of the towns.

So no one cuckholded to a Royal Family of adulterers who is forced to pay
for sub-standard health service in a country where he cannot use his
native language has any right to denigrate the United States.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:26:27
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 05:48 PM,
   Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> said:

> I don't know about the other "Windows advocates" as you call them, but
> I'm beginning to sense a different sort of conspiracy from certain OS/2
> users whose quantity of brain cells almost matches their IQ (which must
> be nearly 20).

If that be the case, then the average Windows user IQ is in negative
numbers.

> Just because I said recently that "I went to go to windows because it,
> unlike OS/2, had the apps I needed and was the most visible choice" does
> not make me a Windows advocate in any way shape or form.  I have not
> been saying on a general level "Go buy windows because OS/2 is dead."
> I've said "OS/2 is dead" a million times but that hardly makes me a
> windows advocate.

It makes you a badly informed, stupid, lemming who spreads the lie that
OS/2 is dead. Get over it, - OS/2 is not dead.


> These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying to
> tell the truth.

You and your fellow lemmings have been lying to yourselves for so long you
cannot recognize the truth. The truth is that Windows is for brain-dead
movie addicts, games players, and other assorted couch potatos.

OS/2 is not for the common man or woman. It is for professionals in
business who provide the income to allow the brain-dead to buy games,
movies, etc. to use on their computers which would otherwise be gathering
dust since Windows users are incapable of actually operating a computer.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:36:08
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 02:52 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:

> >>Bob Germer
> >>I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
> >>grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
> >>machines.

> >David Sutherland
> >Yet you took the time to set up your .sig on this other persons
> >machine, and got it character perfect

> Good call. His previous "explanation" of why his alleged kill file
> wasn't working is that he was using a second (notebook) computer which
> he supposedly takes with him when he travels. And yet, now he's
> allegedly using someone else's computer when he travels, and setting
> that up with his own sig file.

Well, asshole, again you are proven wrong. I do take my notebook when I
travel on business. When I visit family over holidays and they have
hardware running OS/2, I do not. The mail program I use, MR/2 Ice, allows
multiple users with individual signature files. However, the killfile is
universal for all users. Therefore, while visiting my daughter and
son-in-law as I am and have been since Tuesday last, I am not going to
alter their killfile.

> As usual, Bob Germer's "explanations" are rife with inconsistencies and
> implausibilities. How many lies has he been caught in now?

None.

> He's a complete and utter fake and phony. Nothing he says should be
> believed.

Speaking of yourself I see. Good advice. Take it.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:39:14
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 10:52 PM,
   David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk> said:


> Hmmm.....odd that you wouldn't take the time to set up a kill filter
> which you can easily reverse, but you *do* take the time to set up your
> signature file *exactly* as on your usual machine.

With the mail program I use and which is on my daughter's machine as well,
the killfile covers all users. Each user, can, however have a custom
signature file.

> >I leave that to illigitimate anal retentives like you.

>  First Bob, what kind of anal retentive would go to so much trouble with
> his .sig?   Or maybe you didn't, which leads to:

Trouble? I merely take a floppy with my setup for Ice with me when I go to
visit relatives. For Windows users, that would be a very difficult task.
For OS/2 users it is not.

Moreover, I can access my system from anywhere in the world where I have a
computer, a modem, and a phone line. When I do that, I can download any
file on my office network other than open Notes databases. Those I can
download if the guest computer has a Notes client via accessing my Notes
Server since I always carry a notes id file with me.

> Second, the evidence suggests that you are spinning some folks a yarn,
> Bob.

Only for those too ignorant of the capabilities of computers to properly
multi-task because they run an outdated 16 bit operating system with a
fake 32 bit task switching menu program which crashes regularly if they
attempt to use the so-called multitasking ability of their system.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 12:48:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Jerry Prather)

In message <81td1g$9gr$[e-mail]> - larso@commodore.
(Lars P Ormberg) writes:
:>
:>As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Jerry Prather write:
:>> (Lars P Ormberg) writes:
:>
:>> :>"Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
open to
:>> :>whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received by those
who
:>> :>wish to receive it.
:>>
:>> Being a rock hard conservative, politically, I'd like to agree
:>> with you.  But we have this little problem with laws and
:>> government.  Until we manage to get out from under the burden of
:>> an overweaning government, we have to live with those laws.
:>>
:>> The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
:>> M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".
:>
:>How?  Does MS send people to your home, tie up your family, hold a match
:>over a gas canister, and force you to sign on the dotted line for Windows
:>2000?

Lars, I was going to respond to this with a flame that you should
have read the rest of my post before replying so knee-jerkily,
but in reading other people's responses, I found that I didn't
have to.  Your logic flaws have been well pointed out - or is it
your source of income that is being identified????


Jerry Prather                    [e-mail]

"Many religions are worth dying for; no religion is worth killing
for."
                    - Me (circa 1998)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: infi.net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           29-Nov-99 07:55:01
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 10:04:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 09:27 PM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:

> >Bob Germer
> >I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
> >grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
> >machines.

> *If* that's to be believed (and indeed, I have no doubt whatsoever that
> it is yet another one of your brainless fabrications, much less the
> numerous, phony "anecdotes" you like to spew), why on earth would you
> choose to read the messages of a person whom you claimed to have already
> killfiled twice on two different computers -- your home computer and
> your notebook computer that you use when traveling?? Do you *not* know
> how to use a news reader program?

You are so morally bereft you are no longer capable of distinguishing
between water and piss much less truth and lie.

I read the lies you spread when you are quoted by others. I cannot avoid
that. When I am not working, I have the time to take to respond to your
kind if there is nothing else to do. Since it is now just before 8 AM and
no one else here is awake, I took the time. Soon the family will awaken
and at noon here we will depart for our flight home. I have been up since
5 AM, my usual time to arise.

I do not take my notebook, which is a BUSINESS tool when on vacation when
I am visiting relatives who have a computer. Since my daughter is a
registered owner of MR/2 Ice as am I, I take a floppy with my news and
mail setup and run it on her machine. Ice has a universal killfile, but it
allows individual signature files. I do not alter her files since she owns
the computer, not me.

> Indeed, what happened to that alleged notebook you use when your
> traveling?

It is a BUSINESS tool. When the travel is personal, I don't take it since
it belongs to my company and is depreciated for tax purposes. To do so
would be illegal for purely personal use. The hassle of accounting for
personal use of it is not worth the effort when alternatives are
available.

It probably will come as a shock to you, but using a company's property
for purely personal use is against the law. It doesn't matter whether it
is a corporate jet or a pencil, the principle is the same. Just as Lou
Gerstner must reimburse IBM for the cost of personal travel on one of its
planes and IBM must report the income to the IRS, I would have to
reimburse the company for the use of the notebook and report the income.
Even the President of the United States must reimburse the Air Force for
personal or purely political travel on Air Force One.

> Do let me know when you finally get your brainless lies sorted out (not
> that I'll ever believe any of your implausible nonsense. I've already
> seen enough from you to realize that you're a complete fake and phony)

Responsible people do what the law requires. Crooks such as Gates and
idiots like you  apparently cannot be bothered with obeying the law. So,
you then try to find fault with those who do by spreading lies.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 17:16:04
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
> On <81td3k$9gr$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 08:22 AM,
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>
> > > The main problem is being obscured by examples that do not apply.  MS
> > > is a MONOPOLY.
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> What are you smoking, snorting, or shooting? The U.S. Courts have
> determined that MS is a monopoly.

Yes, they have.  Now, what does that mean?  It doesn't mean that Microsoft
is devoid of competition.  Do you have another definition of a monopoly?
Say, a business which is winning a competition?

> > > When a business becomes a monopoly
>
> > Unless government gives it a hand, a business cannot become a monopoly.
>
> Again the question. The U.S. Government does not establish monopolies.

Right now, there are 3 examples that come to mind of monopolies I live under:

- Cable television.  Under the CRTC, Edmonton has 2 cable companies.  One is
only allowed to sell on the east side of town, the other only on the west

- Telephone service.  While I can choose any long distance provider, I can
only have one local phone service.  Anything else is illegal.

- Health care.  I am only allowed to use one health care system, the
government one.  It is illegal to be serviced by a hospital not
government-administered.

None of these can exist without the government.  I can think of no
monopolies I live under not involving government.

> > The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.
>
> You are really stoned out. The finding of fact is the reasoned judgement
> of a United States District Court Judge.

Applying a set of laws that have no validity in real life, or any rational
basis.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 17:29:11
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (E. Barry Bruyea)

On Mon, 29 Nov 99 14:30:53 GMT, [e-mail] (Andrew
Stephenson) wrote:

>In article <3842703d$3$obot$[e-mail]>
>       [e-mail] "Bob Germer" writes:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> No American is forced to pay taxes to support an unelected head
>> of state who lives 3,000 miles away and only sets foot in the
>> country every decade or less.


And neither are Canadians.  And no Canadian would ever be forced to
pay for a Head of State (the president) whose cost on a per capita
basis is about 10 times what the bill is for residents of Canada.  The
cost of the American  'palace', palace guard and all the surrounding
accoutrements makes the monarchy pale by comparison.  The Brits have a
much better deal.
EBB

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Sympatico (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 12:35:05
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Glen D wrote:
>
> In case anyone cares....
>
> HPFS386 *is* fully 32-bit.

Does it come in the form of an IFS?  I don't know because I haven't
tried it.  If so, then it has part of its code in 16 bit land.  Perhaps
someone who uses it can run EXEHDR on it (or some similar utility) and
see if it has any 16 bit segments.

> The following is taken from the HPFS FAQ

That snippet didn't say that it was 100% 32 bit code.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 17:46:01
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> > > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
> > > States.
>
> > Yes.  So much for "home of the free".
>
> You are the type of absolute insane idiot who gives Canadians a bad name.
> We in the United States have more freedom than even you do.

So your defense that anti-trust laws in America erode freedoms is that other
countries have it worse?

By that standard, Canadians should be happy they don't live in Cuba, Cubans
happy that they don't live in China...

>                                                                 We also
> respect the rights of our many minorities by requiring owners of
> businesses to serve all comers regardless of race, color, creed, national
> origin, marital status, etc.

By "requiring" you remove the right of an owner to sell to whoever whenever
despite how upsetting the owner's choices may be.

And you give someone else the right to force another to sell something when
they would not otherwise.

> And no American is required to pay for sub-standard, second rate,
> government run health care whether or not he or she is willing to accept
> it.

Actually, 56% of U.S. health care costs come from government.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          29-Nov-99 17:46:12
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Bob Germer
>>>I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
>>>grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
>>>machines.

>>jglatt
>> *If* that's to be believed (and indeed, I have no doubt whatsoever that
>> it is yet another one of your brainless fabrications, much less the
>> numerous, phony "anecdotes" you like to spew), why on earth would you
>> choose to read the messages of a person whom you claimed to have already
>> killfiled twice on two different computers -- your home computer and
>> your notebook computer that you use when traveling?? Do you *not* know
>> how to use a news reader program?

>I read the lies you spread when you are quoted by others. I cannot avoid
>that.

You read my quoted material with a killfilter as well. That still
doesn't explain the logic behind taking the time to respond to a
person whom you allege to have kill-filed twice upon two, supposed
computers.

But then, since you're a complete phony and liar, it's not surprising
that your "explanations" are so implausible and illogical.

>When I am not working, I have the time to take to respond to your
>kind if there is nothing else to do.

So then, why you're not at your daughter's house, and you're
responding to some messages in this newsgroup with your tripe about
trial verdicts, you're supposedly doing business-related activities?
Don't tell us -- these supposed "clients" (hahahah) of yours have not
only hired some no-name local guy to setup and maintain their million
dollar IBM computer setups (in lieu of using IBM's own service plans),
but they've also retained you as their lawyer. Uh huh. Riiiiiiiight.
Yep. We're believing every word of your implausible tripe.

>Soon the family will awaken
>and at noon here we will depart for our flight home.

More likely, the nurse overseeing the mental ward will unlock your
padded cell and give you your daily medication.

>>Indeed, what happened to that alleged notebook you use when your
>>traveling?

>It is a BUSINESS tool. When the travel is personal, I don't take it since
>it belongs to my company and is depreciated for tax purposes. To do so
>would be illegal for purely personal use. The hassle of accounting for
>personal use of it is not worth the effort when alternatives are
>available.

And what sort of non-personal, business-only uses do your idiotic
posts about Microsoft trial verdicts serve in this newsgroup?

>It probably will come as a shock to you, but using a company's property
>for purely personal use is against the law.

Glad to see you admit that you're engaged in illegal activities while
posting to this newsgroup. Perhaps Judge Jackson should have you
thrown in jail.

>Responsible people do what the law requires.

Apparently, you're irresponsible as well. Not surprising.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 17:58:15
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: [e-mail] (Holger Veit)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:35:11 -0500, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Glen D wrote:
>>
>> In case anyone cares....
>>
>> HPFS386 *is* fully 32-bit.
>
>Does it come in the form of an IFS?  I don't know because I haven't
>tried it.  If so, then it has part of its code in 16 bit land.  Perhaps
>someone who uses it can run EXEHDR on it (or some similar utility) and
>see if it has any 16 bit segments.

This argument was right for HPFS386, but is no longer valid for Aurora's JFS.
HPFS386 has a 16 bit IFS interface and thunks to 32 bit code, JFS uses
a new set of 32 bit entries.

Holger

--
If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: GMD-AiS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 18:30:23
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:22:34, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
> > On <81f1ih$ojn$[e-mail]>, on 11/23/99 at 09:39 PM,
> >    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
> >
> > > "Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
> > > open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received
> > > by those who wish to receive it.
> >
> > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
> > States.
>
> Yes.  So much for "home of the free".

No, that is what keeps it the home of the free. Had it not been for
anti-trust legislation, the United States would have been a fiefdom of the
likes of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.

-------------
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel

E-mail sent to [e-mail] will, of course, not reach me. Sorry.
Send E-mail to: domain: hashkedim dot com, username: stan.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Verio (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 18:30:21
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:46:49, Glenn Davies <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 29 Nov 1999 08:22:12 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:
>
> >As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bennie Nelson write:
> >> Jerry Prather wrote:
> >
> >> > The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
> >> > M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".  I have to buy
> >> > their fried chicken/windows even though I immediately do a Format
> >> > C: when I get home.   ...and just try to get your money back when
> >> > you tell them that you don't want it!  This is what is in
> >> > restraint of trade - I don't have a choice!
> >>
> >> The main problem is being obscured by examples that do not apply.  MS
> >> is a MONOPOLY.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> It has been ruled to be an monopoly under US law. Which doesn't mean
> it is illegal.
>
> >
> >> When a business becomes a monopoly
> >
> >Unless government gives it a hand, a business cannot become a monopoly.
>
> Time to sign up for some buisness and economic classes for next term.
> Business's can become a monopoly even in non-regulated industries -
> visit a small town and look around sometime.
>
> >
> >> the media; all of the utterances from the MS PR Machine are meant to
> >> obfuscate these truths as specified in Judge Jackson's Findings of
> >> Fact:
> >
> >The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.
>
> As if you have even read it let alone understand it. Your previous
> posts show that you know very little about the history of the computer
> industry.

Or economics; or law; or history.

-------------
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel

E-mail sent to [e-mail] will, of course, not reach me. Sorry.
Send E-mail to: domain: hashkedim dot com, username: stan.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Verio (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 13:32:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: James Goneaux <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:30:46 GMT, [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:22:34, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:
>
>> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>> > On <81f1ih$ojn$[e-mail]>, on 11/23/99 at 09:39 PM,
>> >    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>> >
>> > > "Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
>> > > open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received
>> > > by those who wish to receive it.
>> >
>> > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
>> > States.
>>
>> Yes.  So much for "home of the free".
>
>No, that is what keeps it the home of the free. Had it not been for
>anti-trust legislation, the United States would have been a fiefdom of the
>likes of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.

Either of whom, incidently, were far wealthier (as a % of American GDP
than Gates ever will be.

James Goneaux

--------------------------------------------------------------
"The future is already here. It's just unevenly distributed."
William Gibson

[e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Government of Ontario (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 19:07:24
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:20
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (E. Barry Bruyea)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:32:01 -0500, James Goneaux <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:30:46 GMT, [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:22:34, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:
>>
>>> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>>> > On <81f1ih$ojn$[e-mail]>, on 11/23/99 at 09:39 PM,
>>> >    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>>> >
>>> > > "Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
>>> > > open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only received
>>> > > by those who wish to receive it.
>>> >
>>> > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
>>> > States.
>>>
>>> Yes.  So much for "home of the free".
>>
>>No, that is what keeps it the home of the free. Had it not been for
>>anti-trust legislation, the United States would have been a fiefdom of the
>>likes of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
>
>Either of whom, incidently, were far wealthier (as a % of American GDP
>than Gates ever will be.
>
>James Goneaux


And far more important, they, and past 'super-rich' were considerably
more liquid than Gates, or many others who are on Forbes list.  An
important consideration.  Gates status as the leader of the pack could
change tomorrow morning if the MS balloon burst.  Rockerfeller,
Mellon, Dupont and Carnegie et all would hardly have hiccuped, as
being from the generation they were, cash and specie were their
personal measurment of wealth, so they kept lots of it within reach.
EBB

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Sympatico (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 14:19:08
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:21
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

>Does Microsoft send people to force you to buy their products?  Which gun
>is being placed at your skull?
>Or is it a matter of Microsoft "forcing you" to buy the product by
>providing a valued product at an affordable rate?

Where do you get this nonsense from?  If you read the Findings of Fact, as
you claim to have done, you either do not understand US law and how
markets are controlled or you read it with a viewer that only lets you the
MS approved lines.  -- My PDF copy has 206 pages. How many are in yours?

BTW, do you think the US DOJ antitrust action against IBM that essentially
allowed MS have a market share was a good thing or bad thing?  -- I can't
wait for your answer.

_____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Nov-99 12:15:22
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:21
Subj: Opera/2 50% done

From: josco <[e-mail]>

http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
Linux:  +11 out of 20
MacOS:  +12 out of 20

We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
version.


-- joseph

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                    29-Nov-99 15:21:21
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:21
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: and nothing else matters <[e-mail]>

In article <38405a45$0$[e-mail]>, "Quantum Leaper"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>"and nothing else matters" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>> In article <[e-mail]>, "Nik Simpson"
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >"ZnU" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> >news:znu-2611991323430001@192.168.0.2...
>> >> In article <uiy%3.23043$[e-mail]>, "LP"
>> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:znu-2611990043330001@192.168.0.2...
>> >> > > In article <[e-mail]>,
>"Christopher
>> >> > > Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> >> > > > news:[e-mail]...
>> >> > > > > Funny, the full version of OS 9 is $99, the full version of
>Win98
>> >SE
>> >> > is
>> >> > > > > $189... Who's out of touch?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > There is no "full version" of OS 9 - they're all upgrades.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But we can determine the price of a "full version" of Mac OS. Mac
>OS
>> >8.0
>> >> > > ran on CHRP systems, and was priced the same as every Mac OS
>release
>> >> > > since.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you are usin an upgrade license as a new license.. then you are
>> >violating
>> >> > the law.
>> >> >
>> >> > If we're going to discuss criminal behavior.. then well, my Deep
>> >> > Blue
>> >> > computer cost me $0.01 and runs rings around any of your "personal
>> >> > computers"...
>> >>
>> >> But it isn't an upgrade license. Read a Mac OS licensing agreement.
>> >> Nowhere does it say you much have a previous version of the OS.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's just splitting hairs. What use would you have a "new version" of
>> >MacOS if you didn't already possess a Mac with an older version of the
>> >software, you can't run it on anything else.
>>
>> I've bought used Macs with the hard drives wiped clean and NO OS CDs. It
>> helps to be able to buy the full version of the latest operating system
>> for $90. That is not to say operating system costs are not spread over
>> the
>> cost of all machines; they are.
>
>The point is someone ALREADY paid Apple for the OS on your used Mac.   The
>upgrade CD that MS sells is a full version but with a different install
>program or most likely a different ini file.

No, you are failing to see MY point.

Someone originally bought the machine with System 7.5, which he sold
separately.

But I just bought that OS-less  machine. I also bought the full version
of Mac OS 9 for $90.

Make no mistake, the license says it is a full version without a need to
have purchased a previous version, and it clean installs a full version
on a new hard drive.

BTW, what is the retail upgrade cost for an owner of Windows 3.1 to say,
Windows 98?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: my empire of dirt (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 29-Nov-99 12:41:11
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 16:52:21
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (George Graves)

In article <rxg04.24213$[e-mail]>, "LP"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>> In article <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> > Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
>> > much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no matter
>> how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
>> desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.
>
>Where do you get your numbers?  *EVERTHING* I have seen place not only
>Win98, but WIn95, NT4.0 as well
>as Win3.11 WfWG installed and running OS's before the MacOS.

But they are all different iterations of the SAME OS - Windows. There is
Windows, then there is MacOS. That puts MacOS #2

--
George Graves

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Graves Associates (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 21:46:21
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 20:08:14
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:07:48, [e-mail] (E. Barry
Bruyea) wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:32:01 -0500, James Goneaux <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:30:46 GMT, [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:22:34, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:
> >>
> >>> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
> >>> > On <81f1ih$ojn$[e-mail]>, on 11/23/99 at 09:39 PM,
> >>> >    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
> >>> >
> >>> > > "Open to the public" is a farce.  A person's property should only be
> >>> > > open to whomever they want it to be open for...likewise, only
received
> >>> > > by those who wish to receive it.
> >>> >
> >>> > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
> >>> > States.
> >>>
> >>> Yes.  So much for "home of the free".
> >>
> >>No, that is what keeps it the home of the free. Had it not been for
> >>anti-trust legislation, the United States would have been a fiefdom of the

> >>likes of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
> >
> >Either of whom, incidently, were far wealthier (as a % of American GDP
> >than Gates ever will be.
> >
> >James Goneaux
>
>
> And far more important, they, and past 'super-rich' were considerably
> more liquid than Gates, or many others who are on Forbes list.  An
> important consideration.  Gates status as the leader of the pack could
> change tomorrow morning if the MS balloon burst.  Rockerfeller,
> Mellon, Dupont and Carnegie et all would hardly have hiccuped, as
> being from the generation they were, cash and specie were their
> personal measurment of wealth, so they kept lots of it within reach.

And all this is relevant to the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly? And
relevant to the two OS/2 newsgroups on the distribution?

-------------
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel

E-mail sent to [e-mail] will, of course, not reach me. Sorry.
Send E-mail to: domain: hashkedim dot com, username: stan.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Verio (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 16:55:10
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 20:08:14
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451512.4769387687472^-474586709324

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:nvx04.5942$[e-mail]...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:37:48 -0500, Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> >Yet again Tholen has demonstrated that he uses this newsgroup for
> >non-entertainment purposes.  One can only wonder who pays him to be here.
> >Here's the another Tholen digest:
> >
> >[nope]
> >
> >There you have it!
>
> Always slamming Dave, Joe. Don't take this thread too seriously. :P

You got that right, Aaron!  And, no, I don't.

- Joe


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     29-Nov-99 22:14:12
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 20:08:14
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  josco <[e-mail]> wrote:


> We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
> version.

Good job! Any plans for a non-MDI version? (Can't stand MDI
personally...)

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |But on the other hand...|
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |There's 5 more fingers. |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 17:18:17
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 20:08:14
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:21:42 -0500, and nothing else matters
<[e-mail]> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>In article <38405a45$0$[e-mail]>, "Quantum Leaper"
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>"and nothing else matters" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>news:[e-mail]...
>>> In article <[e-mail]>, "Nik Simpson"
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"ZnU" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>> >news:znu-2611991323430001@192.168.0.2...
>>> >> In article <uiy%3.23043$[e-mail]>, "LP"
>>> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>> >> > news:znu-2611990043330001@192.168.0.2...
>>> >> > > In article <[e-mail]>,
>>"Christopher
>>> >> > > Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>> >> > > > news:[e-mail]...
>>> >> > > > > Funny, the full version of OS 9 is $99, the full version of
>>Win98
>>> >SE
>>> >> > is
>>> >> > > > > $189... Who's out of touch?
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > There is no "full version" of OS 9 - they're all upgrades.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > But we can determine the price of a "full version" of Mac OS. Mac
>>OS
>>> >8.0
>>> >> > > ran on CHRP systems, and was priced the same as every Mac OS
>>release
>>> >> > > since.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If you are usin an upgrade license as a new license.. then you are
>>> >violating
>>> >> > the law.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If we're going to discuss criminal behavior.. then well, my Deep
>>> >> > Blue
>>> >> > computer cost me $0.01 and runs rings around any of your "personal
>>> >> > computers"...
>>> >>
>>> >> But it isn't an upgrade license. Read a Mac OS licensing agreement.
>>> >> Nowhere does it say you much have a previous version of the OS.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >That's just splitting hairs. What use would you have a "new version" of
>>> >MacOS if you didn't already possess a Mac with an older version of the
>>> >software, you can't run it on anything else.
>>>
>>> I've bought used Macs with the hard drives wiped clean and NO OS CDs. It
>>> helps to be able to buy the full version of the latest operating system
>>> for $90. That is not to say operating system costs are not spread over
>>> the
>>> cost of all machines; they are.
>>
>>The point is someone ALREADY paid Apple for the OS on your used Mac.   The
>>upgrade CD that MS sells is a full version but with a different install
>>program or most likely a different ini file.
>
>No, you are failing to see MY point.
>
>Someone originally bought the machine with System 7.5, which he sold
>separately.
>
>But I just bought that OS-less  machine. I also bought the full version
>of Mac OS 9 for $90.
>
>Make no mistake, the license says it is a full version without a need to
>have purchased a previous version, and it clean installs a full version
>on a new hard drive.
>
>BTW, what is the retail upgrade cost for an owner of Windows 3.1 to say,
>Windows 98?

About $85.



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 29-Nov-99 22:32:13
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 20:08:14
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Nenad Milenkovic <[e-mail]>

  [e-mail] (Loren Petrich) wrote:

>     And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
> Linux-compatibility layer.

Binary compatiblity is not yet possible.

Nenad


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja Posting Service (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 18:23:04
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451512.4769387687472^-474586709324

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:37:48 -0500, Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> >Yet again Tholen has demonstrated that he uses this newsgroup for
> >non-entertainment purposes.  One can only wonder who pays him to be here.
> >Here's the another Tholen digest:
> >
> >[nope]
> >
> >There you have it!
>
> Always slamming Dave, Joe.

What alleged "slamming", Aaron?

> Don't take this thread too seriously.

Yet another person playing an infantile game.  No surprise there.

> :P

On what basis do you make this claim?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 18:46:07
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:19:26 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:50:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:55 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:27:54 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:18:31 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote,
in
> >> >> >> >> >contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >One more time for the feeble-minded <snip>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What alleged feeble-minded, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >See what I mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged meaning, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >See what I mean?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, Marty, I don't. Had I seen what you meant, I would not have asked
> >> >> you of your meaning.
> >> >
> >> >See what I mean?
> >>
> >> No, Marty, I don't.
> >
> >See what I mean?
>
> No, Marty, I don't.

See what I mean?

> >> >> >> >> >I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> >> >> >> >> >Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even
Tholen may
> >> >> >> >> >catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What alleged Tholen, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Irrelevant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Balderdash.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Typical pontification.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash.
> >> >
> >> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
> >> >nowhere to be seen!
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
> >nowhere to be seen!
>
> Balderdash.

Incorrect.  I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
a logical argument.

> >> >Note that you have yet to explain why knowing to which
> >> >Tholen I'm referring is not irrelevant.
> >>
> >> You erroneously presuppose
> >
> >Incorrect, as no supposition was needed as shown by the following:
> >AD] What alleged Tholen, Marty?
> >M]  Irrelevant.
> >AD] Balderdash.
>
> Where did I say "Which Tholen"?

AD] Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
AD] Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?

Note that you have still failed to present evidence to indicate that my
statement is "erroneous".

> >> that I think that knowing to which Tholen you
> >> are referring is not irrelevant.
> >
> >Then why say, "Balderdash"?  Unless you are once again too busy tending
your
> >Balderdash garden to form a logical argument.
>
> Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?

AD] Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
AD] Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How convenient.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 16:48:24
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Quantum Leaper" <[e-mail]>

"and nothing else matters" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <38405a45$0$[e-mail]>, "Quantum Leaper"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >"and nothing else matters" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >news:[e-mail]...
> >> In article <[e-mail]>, "Nik Simpson"
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"ZnU" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >> >news:znu-2611991323430001@192.168.0.2...
> >> >> In article <uiy%3.23043$[e-mail]>, "LP"
> >> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:znu-2611990043330001@192.168.0.2...
> >> >> > > In article <[e-mail]>,
> >"Christopher
> >> >> > > Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >> >> > > > news:[e-mail]...
> >> >> > > > > Funny, the full version of OS 9 is $99, the full version of
> >Win98
> >> >SE
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > > > > $189... Who's out of touch?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > There is no "full version" of OS 9 - they're all upgrades.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > But we can determine the price of a "full version" of Mac OS.
Mac
> >OS
> >> >8.0
> >> >> > > ran on CHRP systems, and was priced the same as every Mac OS
> >release
> >> >> > > since.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you are usin an upgrade license as a new license.. then you are
> >> >violating
> >> >> > the law.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If we're going to discuss criminal behavior.. then well, my Deep
> >> >> > Blue
> >> >> > computer cost me $0.01 and runs rings around any of your "personal
> >> >> > computers"...
> >> >>
> >> >> But it isn't an upgrade license. Read a Mac OS licensing agreement.
> >> >> Nowhere does it say you much have a previous version of the OS.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >That's just splitting hairs. What use would you have a "new version"
of
> >> >MacOS if you didn't already possess a Mac with an older version of the
> >> >software, you can't run it on anything else.
> >>
> >> I've bought used Macs with the hard drives wiped clean and NO OS CDs.
It
> >> helps to be able to buy the full version of the latest operating system
> >> for $90. That is not to say operating system costs are not spread over
> >> the
> >> cost of all machines; they are.
> >
> >The point is someone ALREADY paid Apple for the OS on your used Mac.
The
> >upgrade CD that MS sells is a full version but with a different install
> >program or most likely a different ini file.
>
> No, you are failing to see MY point.
>
No,  I not failing to see your point,  some ONE paid for a licence for THAT
machine,  it may not have been you but some ONE did,  thats my point!

> Someone originally bought the machine with System 7.5, which he sold
> separately.
>
> But I just bought that OS-less  machine. I also bought the full version
> of Mac OS 9 for $90.
>
> Make no mistake, the license says it is a full version without a need to
> have purchased a previous version, and it clean installs a full version
> on a new hard drive.
>
> BTW, what is the retail upgrade cost for an owner of Windows 3.1 to say,
> Windows 98?

The same as upgrading from Win95.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 00:00:17
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:13:17, Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

ΩIf your country allows discrimination in public accomodations, then it is
Ωnot a free country for minorities. Your freedom requires you to only use
ΩFrench on signs, in display windows, etc. in Quebec.

Bob, quick note. English is permitted on signs in Quebec.  However,
all commercial signs must have french predominant on the sign. You are
allowed to have an english translation, but it must be smaller than
the french version of whatever it is you want to say on the sign.

I moved here from Ontario two and a half years ago and for me, it's
not really a big deal.  They certainly do not prevent anyone from
posting things in english, but they do want to see french everywhere
because things written in public contribute a lot to the overall
literacy of a culture.

French numbers are declining; their current birthrate is less than
replacement.  They're working on just keeping it going here.  I for
one do not begrudge them that. I've had a very good time here; it
would be a shame to see the culture disappear.

Simple fact: I live in Montreal and I see english all over the place
here.

I had already decided to keep my mouth shut in this thread, but well,
you know, national pride and all that; I couldn't let that one slide
by. I don't particularly feel like arguing politics. It's clear to me
already that you two are never ever going to agree on anything.

Of course, if you two just want to scrap, then go ahead, by all means.
 It might be fun to watch.

Beaming into this one from os2.advocacy; for those of you out west:
this could get entertaining!

<starts handing out the asbestos suits to the other onlookers>

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 18:33:17
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:12:25 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:46:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:20:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:22:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
on Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
> >> >> >> >> comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >How ironic.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged irony, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged question, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >>
> >> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
> >
> >No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
> >to examine the relevant evidence.
>
> Balderdash.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> >> I stand corrected.
> >
> >How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.
>
> No comment.

Incorrect.

> >> >> You haven't asked me a question.
> >> >
> >> >That's a lie.
> >>
> >> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
> >
> >No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
> >to examine the relevant evidence.
>
> I see you've failed to answer my question.

Balderdash, Aaron.  See my answer above.

> No surprise there.

No surprise that you failed to locate the answer to your question.

> <snip>

Conveniently removing evidence against you, eh?  Here's your embarrassing
dialog back:
> > I stand corrected.
>
> How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.

Note:  no response

> >> >> On the contrary, it was you who failed to answer the question.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.  You'll find my answer above.
> >>
> >> You haven't answered my question.
> >
> >Incorrect.  Reading comprehension problems?
>
> No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question.

Incorrect, as you will find my answer above if you bothered to look.  I see
you
have an aversion to look at evidence against you.  No surprise there.

> No surprise there.

Where, Aaron?

> >> What alleged irony?
> >
> >See above.
>
> Where is the irony you pointed out a few posts back? I saw no irony.

That is your problem, Aaron, not mine.

> >> >> What alleged irony?
> >> >
> >> >I see you still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
> >>
> >> I don't have reading comprehension problems, Marty.
> >
> >Incorrect.  See above.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you are still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 18:36:16
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:14:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:48:52 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:26:10 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:53:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
on Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Obviously not, Marty.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement,
Dave.  I
> >> >> >> >> >say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes
you think
> >> >> >> >> >my eyes are green?"
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Balderdash.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
 Why,
> >> >> >> >nowhere to be seen!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Typical invective.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash
garden.
> >>
> >> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Balderdash.

Incorrect.  I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
a logical argument.

> >> >> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >>
> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Poppycock.
> >
> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  Note:  no proof was supplied.

> >> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >> >
> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >>
> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> >Not at all, Aaron.  Meanwhile, I see you failed to answer the question.  No
> >surprise there.
>
> No, I'm not having reading comprehension problems, Marty.

Incorrect.  See above.

> >> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >Typical pontification.
>
> Balderdash.

Incorrect.  I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
a logical argument.

> >> >> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Incorrect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash
garden.
> >>
> >> What alleged Balderdash garden, Marty?
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Non sequitir.

Glad you agree.

> >> >> >> >> >> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.  I'll spell it
out for the
> >> >> >> >> >feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my spelling of the word
"blatant".
> >> >> >> >> >Your question is a non sequitur.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying,
nothing
> >> >> >> >> >has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to
identify an
> >> >> >> >> >alleged "lie/game" any better than me.  Now didn't that make a
lot of
> >> >> >> >> >sense?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Poppycock.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >How ironic, coming from someone who is actively tending his own
Balderdash
> >> >> >> >garden.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >See above.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see no "Balderdash garden" above, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.
> >
> >Having more reading comprehension problems, Aaron?
>
> No, Marty.

Incorrect.  See above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 18:59:00
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:25:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
example of
> >> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Illogically,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
would
> >> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
not
> >> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
Get over
> >> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >Don't you know, Aaron?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy tending
your
> >Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.

Note:  no response

> >> >> Are you a two-year-old?
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant.
> >>
> >> On the contrary, quite relevant.
> >
> >Typical pontification.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> >> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> >> >
> >> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
relevant.
> >>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> >
> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
> >nowhere to be seen!
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> >> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> >> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
inappropriate
> >> >> >> >> > question?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
facilities.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
statement
> >> >> >above.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> Note: No comment.
> >
> >No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> >> >> >> >> > Here you go:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
question,
> >> >> >> >> Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >>
> >> >> Self-evident.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> >> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
painfully
> >> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No comment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Note: no comment.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
> >>
> >> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.
> >
> >No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.
>
> What I appear to be doing does not matter.

Incorrect, unless you'd like to admit that what you are "glad" about is
irrelevant.

> >> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
embarassment.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried
to
> >> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
work.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >See above.
> >> >>
> >> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >Not at all, Aaron.
> >>
> >> Poppycock.
> >
> >Typical pontification.  No surprise there.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> >> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
> >> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >>
> >> >> Self-evident.
> >> >
> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
Balderdash
> >> >garden.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> >> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.
> >
> >Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden in
lieu
> >of a logical argument.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.

> I see you've snipped the evidence that you've snipped the evidence in
> the last message of yours.

That's a lie.  Meanwhile, where is your evidence?  Why, nowhere to be seen!

> How convenient.

It often is convenient to lie when you have no evidence or logical argument to
present, as you have just demonstrated.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 00:29:22
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:25:08, [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)
wrote:

ΩOn Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:23:31, Bob Germer
Ω<[e-mail]> wrote:
Ω[snipped and mac group trimmed
Ω> IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
Ω> decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
Ω> of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
Ω> tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
Ω> PC as a BUSINESS tool.
Ω>
Ω> You obviously have no knowledge of the software subscription services, the
Ω> technical support services, etc. IBM offers to OS/2users.
Ω>
Ω> Idiot savants who will pay $40 or more several times a year for the latest
Ω> games that have a half-life of something less than a couple of months were
Ω> unwilling to pay for technical support when the screwed up their
Ω> Presentation Manager screen.
Ω>
Ω> Simpletons who buy several joystick type devices at costs of upwards of
Ω> $30 each year to keep up with the latest games cannot understand that $100
Ω> a year to keep their OS current is cheap.
Ω>
Ω> Mental midgets who complain that $100 a year is too much for added
Ω> features, new device drivers, new capabilities, etc. don't mind paying
Ω> just about as much to M$ for new versions of Windows every couple of years
Ω> when one considers that one also has to upgrade OfficeSour each time for
Ω> an additional $100 or so.
Ω>
Ω> IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
Ω> professionals.
Ω>
ΩI don't mind paying for support if thats what I get but how
Ωabout posting here all the "contact methods" for IBM
Ωsupport?
ΩI suspect my Countries IBM does not support os/2 at all,
Ωgiven the response level to email and phone contact.

Richard, your task is to find the right guy in the organization to
deal with.  He's probably one of the geeks in the back.  See if there
is any warp development that happens in Australia and try hunting them
down instead, maybe.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               29-Nov-99 16:23:02
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 17:58:31 GMT, Holger Veit wrote:

>If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
>it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

ROFL!!!


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      30-Nov-99 00:11:19
  To: All                                               29-Nov-99 21:21:09
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:59:00 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:25:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
example of
>> >> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Illogically,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
would
>> >> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
had not
>> >> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
Get over
>> >> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't you know, Aaron?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy tending
your
>> >Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.
>
>Note:  no response

Irrelevant.

>> >> >> Are you a two-year-old?
>> >> >
>> >> >Irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, quite relevant.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>> >> >
>> >> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
relevant.
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
>> >nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> >> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
on
>> >> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
inappropriate
>> >> >> >> >> > question?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
facilities.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
statement
>> >> >> >above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >See above.
>> >>
>> >> Note: No comment.
>> >
>> >No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> > Here you go:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
question,
>> >> >> >> >> Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Self-evident.
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash.
>> >
>> >Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
>> >> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
painfully
>> >> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No comment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Note: no comment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
>> >> >
>> >> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.
>> >
>> >No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.
>>
>> What I appear to be doing does not matter.
>
>Incorrect, unless you'd like to admit that what you are "glad" about is
>irrelevant.

What I am "glad" about is irrelevant.

>> >> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
embarassment.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried
to
>> >> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
work.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >See above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Not at all, Aaron.
>> >>
>> >> Poppycock.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.  No surprise there.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
>> >> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Self-evident.
>> >> >
>> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
Balderdash
>> >> >garden.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>>
>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> >> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.
>> >
>> >Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden in
lieu
>> >of a logical argument.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.

Balderdash.

>> I see you've snipped the evidence that you've snipped the evidence in
>> the last message of yours.
>
>That's a lie.  Meanwhile, where is your evidence?  Why, nowhere to be seen!

Now Marty, the hypocrite, tells me that I have no evidence that he
snipped the evidence himself. How ironic.

>> How convenient.
>
>It often is convenient to lie when you have no evidence or logical argument
to
>present, as you have just demonstrated.

Now Marty, the hypocrite, is telling me that I have no evidence that he
himself snipped the evidence. How ironic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 01:09:27
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?

The same place that the responding parties find the time.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 01:08:21
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Richard A Crane writes:

>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.

>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...

>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?

>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>> example.

> Was not that one troll you could aford to ignore?

You're presupposing that it looks like a troll to me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 17:28:01
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: RE VT USAGES

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Richard A Crane <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-N7FN1rkVEFZV@localhost...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:59:40, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > Second, if you think you cannot manage your own time without a GUI,
> > you just aren't thinking.
>
> Those that even need a computer to schedule their time
> should think again also

We aren't all lawyers with secretaries and legal assistants to do such for
us.

>
> Richard A Crane
> Barrister & Solicitor
> slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
> octa4.net.au
> OR rcrane AT attglobal.net


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 01:17:15
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the question.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>....and again.

>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>> ....and again.

>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> ....and again.

Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

The same response again for the reader's reference:

> According to your statement, under what conditions
> does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
> functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

Unnecessary, Lucien, again.  I will restore my two simple tests,
however, given that you've never taken them.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

Note again the pat "refusal" to take the two simple tests:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.
]
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
]
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
]
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
]
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
]
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
]
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 01:15:25
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>> Marty wrote:

>>>> I wrote:

>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>> much.

>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
>>>>>>>> him, ...

>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?

>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>>> example.

>>>> Hmm..
>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system
>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.

>>> Since Tholen has shown up here

>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".

> I saw you just show up.

Not "here".

> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.

Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
don't "show up", including you.

> Scared the hell out of me, it did!

That's your problem.

>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.

>> Irrelevant.

> Is too!

Is that a statement of agreement?

>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>> those posts with out suspecting.

>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.

> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!

Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.  And I know
for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you erroneously believe
that I declared to have killfiled you.

>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!

>> Fantasies can be that way.

> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....

Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
fantasies.

> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
> ones!

Ambiguous.

>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.

> Irrelevant!

On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      30-Nov-99 01:30:02
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Marty Digest 282681221862624.5

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

Marty, ever the critic, needs no introduction. His words speak for
themselves.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

1> Incorrect, unless you'd like to admit that what you are "glad" about
1> is irrelevant.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

1> I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form
1> a logical argument.

2> See what I mean?

2> Incorrect.  I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden
2> to form a logical argument.

Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
2> AD] Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
2> AD] Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?

2> AD] Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
2> AD] Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?

3> Glad you agree.

I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.
3> Incorrect.  See above.

3> Incorrect.

3> Balderdash, Aaron.
 (Note who's tending the Balderdash garden.)

3> Note:  no response

No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question.
3> Incorrect, as you will find my answer above if you bothered to look.
3> I see you have an aversion to look at evidence against you.  No
3> surprise there.
 (Note that Marty hasn't answered the question yet.)

3> Where, Aaron?

3> That is your problem, Aaron, not mine.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                30-Nov-99 01:24:18
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)

In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-Hd5IbDrb8ftP@localhost>,
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:48:19, [e-mail] (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:

>>     I'm not likely to use OS/2 anytime soon, but I'd be happy to at
>> least try out a Workspace Shell clone for MacOS X, if one ever comes out.
>> I'm not sure if I would be able to contribute to such a project, but if
>> one got started...

>The issue has been discussed at length here (and in more sane groups
>as well). Problem is that the functionality of the Workplace Shell is
>intimately linked to Warp's innards, including the HPFS file system
>(the WPS can work from FAT, but it is a - ahem! - kludge). ...

    [on support for Extended Attributes...]

    However, the MacOS does have an EA-like feature in its filesystem.
Its files have two forks, a data fork (a DOS/Unix-like simple stream) and
a resource fork (a mini-database). In the latter, objects have a name, a
4-byte resource type, a 2-byte resource ID, and various flags.

    [problems with licensing parts of OS/2...]

    I've seen news reports about some team in IBM that is examining
IBM's software to see what can feasibly be open-sourced.

>Regularly, the idea of a cleanroom FreeOS/2 pops up. There might be
>something in it. IMHO, the overall problem is that OS/2 is just too
>damn' good to give people an incentive to make a new one <G>.

    Except for IBM being in control...

>>     MacOS X is, in a way, not "really" the MacOS, but an updated
>> version of NeXTStep with the old MacOS run in virtual-machine fashion,
>> something like OS/2's support for DOS and Win16.
>They should have called it MachOS X <G>.

    Cute.


--
Loren Petrich                Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[e-mail]            And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      30-Nov-99 01:29:27
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:33:34 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:12:25 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:46:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:20:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:22:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
on Dave's part.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
>> >> >> >> >> comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >How ironic.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged irony, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged question, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
>> >>
>> >> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
>> >
>> >No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
>> >to examine the relevant evidence.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Balderdash.

>> >> I stand corrected.
>> >
>> >How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.
>>
>> No comment.
>
>Incorrect.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> You haven't asked me a question.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's a lie.
>> >>
>> >> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
>> >
>> >No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
>> >to examine the relevant evidence.
>>
>> I see you've failed to answer my question.
>
>Balderdash, Aaron.  See my answer above.

Maybe my glasses are dirty again.

>> No surprise there.
>
>No surprise that you failed to locate the answer to your question.

No surprise indeed, because there was no answer provided by you.

>> <snip>
>
>Conveniently removing evidence against you, eh?  Here's your embarrassing
>dialog back:
>> > I stand corrected.
>>
>> How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.
>
>Note:  no response

I snipped it because I had no response to it, Marty. It's not
embarrassing at all.

>> >> >> On the contrary, it was you who failed to answer the question.
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect.  You'll find my answer above.
>> >>
>> >> You haven't answered my question.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.  Reading comprehension problems?
>>
>> No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question.
>
>Incorrect, as you will find my answer above if you bothered to look.  I see
you
>have an aversion to look at evidence against you.  No surprise there.

Maybe my glasses are dirty again.

>> No surprise there.
>
>Where, Aaron?

Snipping relevant information again, Marty?

>> >> What alleged irony?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> Where is the irony you pointed out a few posts back? I saw no irony.
>
>That is your problem, Aaron, not mine.

Maybe my glasses are dirty again.

>> >> >> What alleged irony?
>> >> >
>> >> >I see you still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
>> >>
>> >> I don't have reading comprehension problems, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.  See above.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>I see you are still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.  No surprise there.

Balderdash.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                 29-Nov-99 20:53:00
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:38426ce7$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <81s8ka$g8b$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 05:00 PM,
>    "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > I would agree that Apple didn't 'steal' the Xerox UI, but you should not
> > accept MacKiDo's claims that Microsoft 'stole' DOS, either. In both
> > cases the companies dealt very shrewdly and got the better end of the
> > deal.
>
> Well, Seattle Computer would beg to disagree since they successfully sued
> MS for ripping off DOS.

Oh?

> Since it was in bankruptcy at the time the suit
> was settled, it agreed to a settlement of less than a million dollars just
> before the jury was about to award many times that amount.

So Microsoft settled, then. Why? What was the basis of the suit?

Every history I've read of this has Microsoft paying several tens of
thousands of dollars for QDOS; that doesn't sound like stealing.

Do they lie?

> When
> interviewed after they were dismissed, the jurors told reporters they were
> arguing between 100 and 70 million dollars.

I suspect there's something you are leaving out; it sounds like
Seattle Computer was very unwise to settle.

> Tim Patterson, the Seattle Computer employee who did the actual work on
> DOS also got a sweetheart job at MS after the suit was settled.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 21:05:08
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Richard A Crane writes:
>
> >> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
> >>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
> >>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> >>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
> >>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
> >> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
> >> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> >> example.
>
> > Was not that one troll you could aford to ignore?
>
> You're presupposing that it looks like a troll to me.

Dave again restates the obvious and adds nothing to the discussion.  No
surprise there.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Nov-99 21:26:09
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
>Linux:  +11 out of 20
>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
>
>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
>version.
>
>
>-- joseph
>
>

WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    30-Nov-99 02:07:18
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

[e-mail] wrote:

: Good job! Any plans for a non-MDI version? (Can't stand MDI
: personally...)

    What's MDI?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: St. John's InfoNET (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    30-Nov-99 02:07:08
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

josco ([e-mail]) wrote:
: http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
: OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
: Linux:  +11 out of 20
: MacOS:  +12 out of 20

: We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
: version.

    Wow, that was quick.  It was only like a two weeks ago we were at
like +2 out of 20. :-)

    One thing that has struck me as being odd.  I would have honestly
figured that the Linux version would have been completed by now.  I mean
both BeOS and that Epoch/(??) one beat Linux to the punch by quite a while.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: St. John's InfoNET (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 21:22:13
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:33:34 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:12:25 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:46:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:20:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:22:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
lie/game on Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
> >> >> >> >> >> comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >How ironic.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What alleged irony, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged question, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >>
> >> >> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
> >> >
> >> >No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
> >> >to examine the relevant evidence.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Balderdash.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  No surprise there.

> >> >> I stand corrected.
> >> >
> >> >How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.
> >>
> >> No comment.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> You haven't asked me a question.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's a lie.
> >> >>
> >> >> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
> >> >
> >> >No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
> >> >to examine the relevant evidence.
> >>
> >> I see you've failed to answer my question.
> >
> >Balderdash, Aaron.  See my answer above.
>
> Maybe my glasses are dirty again.

Your alleged "glasses" do little to cover up your illogic and inconsistency.
Perhaps you should switch from the rose-colored variety to an appropriate
corrective type of lens.

> >> No surprise there.
> >
> >No surprise that you failed to locate the answer to your question.
>
> No surprise indeed,

Glad you agree.

> because there was no answer provided by you.

That is a lie.

> >> <snip>
> >
> >Conveniently removing evidence against you, eh?  Here's your embarrassing
> >dialog back:
> >> > I stand corrected.
> >>
> >> How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.
> >
> >Note:  no response
>
> I snipped it because I had no response to it, Marty.

You can't dishonestly cover your tracks with me around, Aaron.

> It's not embarrassing at all.

Incorrect.

> >> >> >> On the contrary, it was you who failed to answer the question.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Incorrect.  You'll find my answer above.
> >> >>
> >> >> You haven't answered my question.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.  Reading comprehension problems?
> >>
> >> No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question.
> >
> >Incorrect, as you will find my answer above if you bothered to look.  I see
you
> >have an aversion to look at evidence against you.  No surprise there.
>
> Maybe my glasses are dirty again.

Your alleged "glasses" do little to cover up your illogic and inconsistency.
Perhaps you should switch from the rose-colored variety to an appropriate
corrective type of lens.

I see you've still failed to examine the evidence in question.  No surprise
there.

> >> No surprise there.
> >
> >Where, Aaron?
>
> Snipping relevant information again, Marty?

What alleged "relevant information", Aaron?

> >> >> What alleged irony?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> Where is the irony you pointed out a few posts back? I saw no irony.
> >
> >That is your problem, Aaron, not mine.
>
> Maybe my glasses are dirty again.

Perhaps if you weren't so studiously tending your Balderdash garden your
glasses would remain clean, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

> >> >> >> What alleged irony?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see you still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't have reading comprehension problems, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.  See above.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >I see you are still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a
logical
> >argument.  No surprise there.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you are still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 21:37:20
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 30 Nov 1999 01:15:51 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>> Marty wrote:
>
>>>>> I wrote:
>
>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>>> much.
>
>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
>>>>>>>>> him, ...
>
>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>>>> example.
>
>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system
>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>
>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here
>
>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".
>
>> I saw you just show up.
>
>Not "here".

Yes, here. Here is CSMA.
>
>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
>
>Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
>thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>don't "show up", including you.

I never sleep; I am always here.
>
>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
>
>That's your problem.

And my cleaner's as well.
>
>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>
>>> Irrelevant.
>
>> Is too!
>
>Is that a statement of agreement?

Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>
>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>
>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.
>
>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>
>Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.

Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
so restricted.

> And I know
>for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you erroneously believe
>that I declared to have killfiled you.

Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
>
>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>
>>> Fantasies can be that way.
>
>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
>
>Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>fantasies.

Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
>
>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>> ones!
>
>Ambiguous.

Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
>
>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>
>> Irrelevant!
>
>On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.

Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 21:48:10
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron recently claimed that his glass have been dirty while reading my posts.
While this may explain his convenient inability to view the relevant evidence
I
have presented to him, it does little to explain his rampant illogic and
hypocrisy.

For further evidence that he is indeed tending his own very well maintained
Balderdash garden, note how he quoted several of my postings, removing all
relevant context from the quotes in question, and adding irrelevant commentary
of his own.  Time to digestify his postings.

1> Irrelevant

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> What I am "glad" about is irrelevant.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Balderdash.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Now Marty, the hypocrite, tells me that I have no evidence that he
1> snipped the evidence himself. How ironic.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Now Marty, the hypocrite, is telling me that I have no evidence that he
1> himself snipped the evidence. How ironic.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> Marty, ever the critic, needs no introduction. His words speak for
2> themselves.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> Where did I say "Which Tholen"?

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2>  (Note who's tending the Balderdash garden.)

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2>  (Note that Marty hasn't answered the question yet.)

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 22:07:01
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: [e-mail] (Tim Adams)

In article <81vaju$3ik$[e-mail]>, "Daniel Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> "Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:38426ce7$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > On <81s8ka$g8b$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 05:00 PM,
> >    "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:
> >
> > > I would agree that Apple didn't 'steal' the Xerox UI, but you should not
> > > accept MacKiDo's claims that Microsoft 'stole' DOS, either. In both
> > > cases the companies dealt very shrewdly and got the better end of the
> > > deal.
> >
> > Well, Seattle Computer would beg to disagree since they successfully sued
> > MS for ripping off DOS.
>
> Oh?
>
> > Since it was in bankruptcy at the time the suit
> > was settled, it agreed to a settlement of less than a million dollars just
> > before the jury was about to award many times that amount.
>
> So Microsoft settled, then. Why? What was the basis of the suit?
>
> Every history I've read of this has Microsoft paying several tens of
> thousands of dollars for QDOS; that doesn't sound like stealing.
>
> Do they lie?

It is my understanding that the copy they bought was a _pirated_ and
modified version of Seattle Computer's DOS. Both versions were licensed by
IBM for release with the first PC. MS's version took control because IBM
priced them so differently - one for ~$50 and the other for ~$150.
They licensed both because they (IBM) was concerned because of rumors they
had heard of MS's version being stolen AND that Seattle Computer was about
to sue MS for doing the stealing. In their licensing deal with Seattle
Computer, Gary Kildahl (bad spelling on the name) told IBM to go ahead, he
wouldn't sue but beat them (MS) with a better product. IBM then screwed
him with the price.


>
> > When
> > interviewed after they were dismissed, the jurors told reporters they were
> > arguing between 100 and 70 million dollars.
>
> I suspect there's something you are leaving out; it sounds like
> Seattle Computer was very unwise to settle.
>
> > Tim Patterson, the Seattle Computer employee who did the actual work on
> > DOS also got a sweetheart job at MS after the suit was settled.

--
Tim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEA Design (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     29-Nov-99 22:09:19
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: WickedDyno <[e-mail]>

In article <81v852$b6t$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?
>
>The same place that the responding parties find the time.
>

In a secret chest in his attic. . .  along with his form of logic. . .
it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.

(Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)

--
|           Andrew M. Glasgow <[e-mail]>          |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
|   and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges     |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 03:19:03
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>>>> much.

>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
>>>>>>>>>> him, ...

>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?

>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>>>>> example.

>>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system
>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.

>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here

>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".

>>> I saw you just show up.

>> Not "here".

> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.

Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
cross-posted to that newsgroup either.

>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.

>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>> don't "show up", including you.

> I never sleep; I am always here.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!

>> That's your problem.

> And my cleaner's as well.

On what basis do you make that claim?

>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.

>>>> Irrelevant.

>>> Is too!

>> Is that a statement of agreement?

> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.

I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.

>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.

>>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.

>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!

>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.

> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
> so restricted.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.

> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.

The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!

>>>> Fantasies can be that way.

>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....

>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>> fantasies.

> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?

"You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."

>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>> ones!

>> Ambiguous.

> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.

Irrelevant.

>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.

>>> Irrelevant!

>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.

> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?

It demonstrates your poor memory.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 03:20:13
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Andrew M. Glasgow writes:

>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?

>> The same place that the responding parties find the time.

> In a secret chest in his attic. . .

Illogical.

> along with his form of logic. . .

Better than yours.

> it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.

Also illogical.

> (Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)

Typical invective.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 22:39:19
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 30 Nov 1999 03:19:06 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>>>>> much.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
>>>>>>>>>>> him, ...
>
>>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
>>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>>>>>> example.
>
>>>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2
system
>>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>
>>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here
>
>>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".
>
>>>> I saw you just show up.
>
>>> Not "here".
>
>> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.
>
>Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
>cross-posted to that newsgroup either.

Do tell...
>
>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
>
>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>>> don't "show up", including you.
>
>> I never sleep; I am always here.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.

Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
a year. You will see that the numbers are different. What other proof
can there be?

>
>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
>
>>> That's your problem.
>
>> And my cleaner's as well.
>
>On what basis do you make that claim?

On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
>
>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed
up.
>
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
>>>> Is too!
>
>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
>
>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>
>I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.

Unambiguousness is for wimps.
>
>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>
>>>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.
>
>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>
>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.
>
>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
>> so restricted.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.

All will be known come the Saturay drawing!
>
>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
>
>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
>
>The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!
>
>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>
>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
>
>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
>
>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>>> fantasies.
>
>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
>
>"You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."

Read the line below and all will be answered.
>
>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>>> ones!
>
>>> Ambiguous.
>
>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
>
>Irrelevant.

Not to the crows.
>
>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>
>>>> Irrelevant!
>
>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
>
>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
>
>It demonstrates your poor memory.

Wait until Saturday.



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    29-Nov-99 22:48:11
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>,
: [e-mail] says...
:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
:>
:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
:>version.
:>

: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!

How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
is still coming along nicely.

I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     29-Nov-99 22:51:09
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: WickedDyno <[e-mail]>

In article <81vfpr$giu$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

>Andrew M. Glasgow writes:
>
>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?
>
>>> The same place that the responding parties find the time.
>
>> In a secret chest in his attic. . .
>
>Illogical.
>
>> along with his form of logic. . .
>
>Better than yours.
>
>> it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.
>
>Also illogical.
>
>> (Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)
>
>Typical invective.
>

Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :)

--
|           Andrew M. Glasgow <[e-mail]>          |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
|   and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges     |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    29-Nov-99 22:54:17
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: Wake Up !

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]> wrote:

: Sorry about all the swearing. I was a little excited that day.

Let this be a lesson to you that you shouldn't get all excited about an
operating system.  They are just tools people use.  If you're going to
excited about an operating system, why OS/2?  Go get excited at some
distro of Linux or at PalmOS.  If some people enjoy OS/2, let them be.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                30-Nov-99 04:12:07
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: John Jensen <[e-mail]>

Stephen S. Edwards II <[e-mail]> wrote:
: John Jensen <[e-mail]> writes:

: : Chad Myers <[e-mail]> wrote:

: : : Typical "CLI or Bust" attitude of a Linvocate, ZnU.

: : : How do you think those Wedding registries at Target work?
: : : Hint: They're GUI (Microsoft Windows to boot!)
: : : Hint: They use a touch screen

: : So you reply with "GUI or Bust", but laughably you communicate this
: : message in text.

: Exactly how is Chad implying "GUI or Bust"?  He's merely denouncing the
: "CLI or Bust" mentality that constantly oozes from the mouths of "UNIX or
: Bust" advocates.

Sorry, I just saw this question today.

My thinking was that Chad answered a "CLI or Bust" attitude with a
pure-GUI alternative.  The Wedding regestry that he chose as a contrast to
the CLI is an absolute GUI.  If I understand him correctly, there was no
keyboard.  In fact, he went on to say:

"Also, you could have a web based app that requires only mouse clicks and
no typing."

It just seemed funny to me to imply that you should not need to type, and
to reply with a typed answer.  That's all.

John

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Primenet [phone] (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 23:27:04
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: (1/2) Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >> >The entire product is still in beta and has a free trial for 21 days.
When the
> >> >beta period is over, the base product will be available for free.  No
purchase
> >> >necessary at any stage of the game.  The issue of "full support"
(meaning the
> >> >3D accelerated aspects) is being addressed by Scitech.
> >>
> >> So we can talk about betas now? Sorry. And "being address" isn't the same
as
> >> available.
>
> >Fair enough.  I'll just point out that Scitech is a professional company
that
> >has been consistently delivering what they promise, usually in a timely
manner.
>
> Their work with the newer cards is unproven.

That's why they're in what's known as a "beta" cycle right now.

> I hate to be the one to break it to you, but in this industry you have
> prove yourself time and time again.

Like Scitech has with their DOS and Win32 products.

> But I'll be nice, kindly point me to their Direct3d efforts that have
> successfully run under OS/2, that we all may bask it Scitech's glory.

Perhaps you're confused.  The only efforts to get Direct3D running under OS/2
will come from project Odin.  As far as hardware accelerated 3D support, that
is Scitech's department.

> >> I'll come out on record and declare that OS/2 will never have 3d support,
> >> Scitech notwithstanding.
>
> >And you will be shown wrong, in due time.
>
> So you say. Considering OS/2's less than stellar support for multimedia,
> the odds are on my side.

Considering Scitech's past performance, I remain fairly confident.

> >> And as for "no purchase necessary" try reading their
> >> site. You can't even go above 85mhz with the free pack.
>
> >85MHz!  I should hope not!  Not a monitor on the planet that could do
vertical
> >refresh at that speed.
>
> Dude, it is comical at how far behind the times you are. My monitor and
> videocard can do up to 120mhz at 800X600.

Perhaps you should consult your documentation and then come back here and
admit
that vertical refresh rates are given in Hz, not MHz.

> I guess my IBM P2000 must be from Mars.

Certainly the concept of vertical refresh rates in MHz could be.  It's not
from
this planet.

> >> As usual, you won't be able to access the full abilities of the card.
Even
> >> after the software is released and you buy it.
>
> >Until the support improves, which it has been steadily.  Why ignore the
> >progress they have been making and assume their support will be stagnant?
>
> It is progress to you. To people who have those features out of the chute,
it
> is moving backwards.

That's why no one is suggesting that these people give up what they have to
move "backwards".  That doesn't refute the fact that progress has been, and
continues to be made.

> >> >You only asked for one:
> >> >What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?"
> >>
> >> True. But you said "most". Don't offer if you can't back it up.
>
> >Just thought of another.  XAnim.
>
> Your trickles only prove my point. XAnim? Who cares?

Sorry, but I am not knowledgable of every *nix program which has been ported
to
OS/2.  Here's "a few" more (snicker):  http://www.powerusersbbs.com/ports/

> >> >> An inferior shell,
> >>
> >> >Which one would that be?
> >>
> >> Enlightment. You brought it up.
>
> >What's allegedly inferior about it?
>
> What can it do that the WPS cannot?

I've noticed you failed to answer the question.

> >> >> Gimp(which has a Win32 version)
> >>
> >> >Which isn't stable in Win32, but is perfectly usable in OS/2.
> >>
> >> If you can mention beta Scitech drivers, I can mention Gimp. You said
Gimp
> >> isn't available for Win32.
>
> >And where have I stated this?  Let's go to the videotape, shall we?  Here's
my
> >first mention of it:  "Gimp (it was barely ported to Win32 as I
understand)."
>
> I asked you for Unix ports that were available for OS/2 and not NT. Clearly,

> you were answering my question.

Then take your pick from the URL above (http://www.powerusersbbs.com/ports/)

> Or if I asked you for the time, would you give me answer to 1 + 1?

That depends... are you an attractive female?

> >> I've proven otherwise.
>
> >You didn't need to.
>
> I did.

Congratulations on your irrelevant point.

> ?>You say that 3d support is being address by Scitech. Where's your proof?
>
> >news.scitechsoft.com -> scitech.display.doctor.os2.beta
>
> >Unfortunately, no service seems to archive their past postings to which I
could
> >refer.
>
> In other words, NO PROOF.

None you seem willing to examine.  None I can easily digest for you.  The
proof
does, however, exist.

> >I'll also point out that a commitment by a professional corporation with a
> >history of delivering products has quite a bit more weight than a
half-baked
> >port by a few hobbyists.
>
> Is this in reference to GIMP? Remember, you brought up Gimp, not me. But if
it
> is half-bake, then you STILL owe me a program that runs under OS/2, but not
NT.

Like I said, take your pick.

> >> Hate to burst it to you, but in a corporate enviromnent, X-Windows is
used to
> >> run Unix apps. No one cares if one can port something using an EMX
equivalent
> >> because EMX brings nothing to the table that you can't get from Unix and
Win32.
>
> >The corporate environment has little to do with our discussion.  Your X
> >"Servers" for win32 are nothing more than X display software.  They are not
> >bona-fide servers.
>
> To you, but I think that we've established that your tastes represent a tiny

> microfraction of the real world.

Ask any Unix administrator if they would consider any of the products you
mentioned as X "servers".  No need to take my word for it.

> >> >An unusable Win32 version.
> >>
> >> More usable than Scitechs "being addressed" OS/2 3d support.
>
> >But far less supported and far less potential to be usable.
>
> Please. GIMP Win32 is here. OS/2 3d support is NOT.

Please.  Gimp Win32 is stagnant.  OS/2 3D support is NOT.

> >> >The X version works natively in OS/2.  I've also heard of people running
it
> >> >under PMX and eXceed.
> >>
> >> It works under OS/2 if you install X/Free86. That is not native.
>
> >That is native, actually, as the process is running on my local box using
> >native libraries in the real OS's environment (not a virtual environment).
And
> >did you comprehend my second statement?
>
> Native is running on a particular OS out of the box. Gimp does not.

Perhaps on your planet (you know, the one where a monitor can operate with a
vertical refresh rate of 120MHz).  By your definition, Direct X 6.0 apps don't
run natively in Win95.

> >> >It's all you asked for.
> >>
> >> But you said "most". Back it up.  You asked for one X-Server. I gave you
many.
>
> >Actually I haven't found anything in the 5 or 6 products I looked at in
your
> >reference that could be considered an X server.
>
> See above for what I think of your (re)definitions.

Likewise for how silly yours was.

> >> >> >> I do use Unix. What about tools like Cygnus or MKS? Why doesn't
OS/2 actually
> >> >> >> have tools that people who use Unix actually need and use?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Like GCC, RCS, Grep, make, diff, ......?
> >> >>
> >> >> All available under Windows. Keep trying.
> >>
> >> >You asked me if useful tools were available.  They are.
> >>
> >> I asked for tools that were not available under WinNT. You haven't given
me
> >> much.
>
> >Actually if you look a few lines up, you'll see that you asked:
> >"What about tools like Cygnus or MKS? Why doesn't OS/2 actually have tools
that
> >people who use Unix actually need and use?"
>
> >I've answered those questions.
>
> You did not.

Then to alleviate your confusion, I'll answer it again here:  There are tools
like gcc, rcs, grep, make, diff, etc. available for OS/2, which, by your
description of Cygnus and MKS, are similar to said products.  OS/2 does
actually have tools that people who use Unix actually need and use.

> >> >> >What do Cygnus and MKS do?
> >> >>
> >> >> MKS is a commercial set of unix tools.
        ^^^
> >>
> >> >Which do what exactly?
> >>
> >> They are Win32 ports of unix tools. grep, csh, bsh, etc...
>
> >And you have to <pay> for that?  Egad!
>
> Cygus is freeware. You sure need to get out more.

And you need to keep better track of the subject of discussion.  I was
discussing MKS when I made the above statement, as context clearly shows.

> > >> Cygnus is freeware, but charges for support and was just purchased by
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> And read more.

I've read all that I needed to read.

> >> >> >> >Which scripting languages can you use in NT that you can't use in
OS/2?  Prove
> >> >> >> >what you say instead of just declaring it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> VB and Javascript.
> >> >>
> >> >> >0 for 2.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? And how can OS/2 use either of these for scripting the OS/2?
Try
> >> >> issuing some Enlightenment instead of invoking it.
> >>
> >> >VABasic & Netscape.
> >>
> >> First, IBM doesn't even sell VABasic anymore.
>
> >That doesn't mean it doesn't run anymore.
>
> Nope. It just means that no one wants it and fewer people use it.
Whasamatter?
> Can't name stuff that's actually available? I've noticed that about you.

Whasamatter?  Can't accept that I've answered your question?  I've noticed
that
about you.

> >> Second, you canot use Netscape to create a script to say, add a user to
the
> >> system, or run programs.
>
> >That wasn't part of the claim.
>
> You metioned Rexx so clearly the implication OS scripting language.  Windows
can
> use vascript and Javascript.
>
> OS/2 can't.

You've conveniently left off the "out-of-the-box" clause.

> >> You are mistaken again.
>
> >Not quite.
>
> Afraid. You just don't know it.

Poor me, wallowing in my own ignorance.  I guess I'll just have to continue to
stare blankly at my slowly refreshing monitor.

> >And now to backpedal a bit back to your claims from a few posts ago:
> >> Considering you can get Rexx and a other scripting languages that are NOT
> >> available under OS/2, it seems that OS/2 is at a disadvantage.  I'll
rather
> >> have many options available and pick and choose than one built-in option.
>
> >You fail to see the value of having something built-in to the OS.
Programmers
> >can rely on REXX being install on *every* OS/2 system without exception.
> >Hence, they can use it with impunity for deploying their applications, and
use
> >it within their applications.  Do you also fail to see the power of having
a
> >bsh or ksh installed as part of Unix OS's?  What does NT's shell have
built-in
> >that anyone can use for scripting?  Out-of-the-box: squat.
>
> Wrong. The rexx install is optional. Do you EVER read? It's getting boring
> proving you wrong.

Ok, wise guy.  Prove me wrong.  REXX is automatically installed on every OS/2
system.  Not an option (I just checked "Selective Install" a few moments ago).

By all means prove me wrong.

> >> I'm refering to install options. You claimed and have yet to back up the
> >> statement that OS/2 gives one more installation control.
> >>
> >> Try, just once, to back something up.
>
> >It's hard to back up a subjective claim ("I find that it's easier to
install
> >something when I can control the process, a feeling I don't get when I use
> >Winxx.") with solid fact.  It's my personal experience and you should treat
it
> >as such, not as a claim against or for a given platform.
>
> In other words, you cannot back up your statement. No suprise there.

No need.  It was an opion of why I would use OS/2 over NT.  Again your
reluctance to admit that I have adequately answered the question at hand.

> >> >> Try it.
> >>
> >> >And this can't happen in a user's directory under NT?
> >>
> >> That's right. Under NT, I can easily change access to prevent programs
from
> >> deleting files.
>
> >And I could make them read-only in Warp 4.  Or if we're talking about an
ext2
> >filesystem mounted in OS/2, I can have full user permissions as well.  If
> >you're careless, anything can happen to your files.
>
> And *I* could make the R/W. Under NT, you could not do this unless you are
the
> owner or have Admin rights.
>
> Give it up.

Given the HPFS386, JFS, or Ext2 filesystems under OS/2, the same
controllability is granted.  Give it up.

> >If my system is so insecure, then bring it down.  Go right ahead.  My IP
> >changed since the last time I issued this unanswered challenge.  It is now
> >24.95.151.10.
>
> Not interested.

No surprise there.

> I used OS/2 for years and I know that it is why open. I also
> know fire is hot, so I don't need to hold the flame to my hand.

"In other words, *NO PROOF*"

My challenge still stands unanswered.

> >> You just have an unsecure system.
>
> >"Prove it, if you think you can."
>
> Sure. If I send you a DOS bat file with some 'Del' command in it, do you
> promise to run it?

That wouldn't prove the system was insecure, David.

> >Ok.  We'll call this one quits here.  ;-)
>
> >Needless to say, your statement does not counter my original statement,
namely:
> >"7] Runs any application that I want to use"
>
> And yours doesn't change the fact that Windows has better hardware and
software
> support.

Which is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Needless to say, your statement does not counter my original statement,
namely:
"7] Runs any application that I want to use"

Times infinity, no takebacks.

> >> The only thing you've shown is that your experience is faulty and you
don't
> >> know how to install NT. I've got an NT installation almost 40 megs
smaller than
> >> your OS/2 installation.
>
> >Try installing it after making an HPFS partition your first primary on your
> >first drive, then get back to me and tell me my experience is faulty and I
> >don't know how to install NT.
>
> If you tried to do this, then I know you don't know how to install NT, 4.0
> anyway.

That's interesting, considering that I did get such a configuration to work.

> >> This is why people lump OS/2 users together.
>
> >Like you're about to do now?
>
> Is that what I'm doing?

"You guys..."  Yes.

> >> You guys try to say that Windows is unstable or slow despite all evidence
to
> >> the contrary.
>
> >Win95 on my system gets used 1 day a week at most for a few hours.  In that

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 23:27:04
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:13
Subj: (2/2) Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

> >timespan, it crashes an average of 2 to 3 times.  OS/2 is in operation for
the
> >rest of that week, 24/7.  It crashes on me when I write really crappy code
> >maybe once a week at most.
>
> Of course. OS/2 users seem to have the most unstable Windows boxes in the
> world.

Now blame it on my "incompetance".  By the same token, Win users seem to have
the most useless OS/2 boxes in the world.

> >> Denial is a religious art form in this group.
>
> >Personal experience has little to do with denial.
>
> As does exaggeration.

Glad you see the error of your ways.

> >> >NT is just plain bigger than OS/2.  That's nothing to be ashamed of,
> >> >it's just a fact.
> >>
> >> The only fact is that you are mistaken. No shame in that.
>
> >Not according to what my hard drives told me.  Apparently YMMV.
>
> Then you are wrong.

Look at the contents of my hard drives of yesteryear and tell me I'm wrong
David.

> You cannot say that OS/2 installs smaller if there is so much as ONE install

> that contradicts this. YOUR NT INSTALL WAS BIGGER. That is all you can say.

That's all I have tried to say.

> >> >> Give it up.
> >>
> >> >Practice what you preach.
> >>
> >> Don't need to preach. I'm right.
>
> >"On what basis do you make this claim?"
>
> Have you been reading this thread?

Unfortunately yes.  Yourself?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     29-Nov-99 21:12:23
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

HPFS386 I wrote about was the original HPFS written by Gordon Letwin for MS
Lan Manager.
The other HPFS386 is more current and from IBM for their Lan Server.

According to an article on the OS/2 HPFS.  "The IFS mechanism defines the
interface between the OS and the file systems.  One interface is the memory
allocation allocated to the IFS.  The memory available to the IFS is
limited by the OS/2 kernel and is currently fixed at 2 MB. "  I cannot see
how a new IFS will override the 2MB IFS limitation built into the kernel.
There is a separate control program -- to allocate cache for the file
system and allow cache parameters to be set independently for each volume.

The other features of the current HPFS (1996) are only sensible for a
server.  access control lists, DASD Limits, Separate Control Program.

(OS/2 Magazine 1996. by Max and Sandy Eidswick).

Marty wrote:

> Glen D wrote:
> >
> > In case anyone cares....
> >
> > HPFS386 *is* fully 32-bit.
>
> Does it come in the form of an IFS?  I don't know because I haven't
> tried it.  If so, then it has part of its code in 16 bit land.  Perhaps
> someone who uses it can run EXEHDR on it (or some similar utility) and
> see if it has any 16 bit segments.
>
> > The following is taken from the HPFS FAQ
>
> That snippet didn't say that it was 100% 32 bit code.
>
> - Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 00:30:25
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Joseph wrote:
>
> HPFS386 I wrote about was the original HPFS written by Gordon Letwin for MS
> Lan Manager.
> The other HPFS386 is more current and from IBM for their Lan Server.
>
> According to an article on the OS/2 HPFS.  "The IFS mechanism defines the
> interface between the OS and the file systems.  One interface is the memory
> allocation allocated to the IFS.  The memory available to the IFS is
> limited by the OS/2 kernel and is currently fixed at 2 MB. "  I cannot see
> how a new IFS will override the 2MB IFS limitation built into the kernel.
> There is a separate control program -- to allocate cache for the file
> system and allow cache parameters to be set independently for each volume.
>
> The other features of the current HPFS (1996) are only sensible for a
> server.  access control lists, DASD Limits, Separate Control Program.
>
> (OS/2 Magazine 1996. by Max and Sandy Eidswick).

I don't mind you stating facts, but is this supposed to relate to the
"bittedness" of the driver, or could your facts have been better placed in a
response to a different article?

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     29-Nov-99 21:40:07
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:

> Joseph wrote:
> >
> > HPFS386 I wrote about was the original HPFS written by Gordon Letwin for
MS
> > Lan Manager.
> > The other HPFS386 is more current and from IBM for their Lan Server.
> >
> > According to an article on the OS/2 HPFS.  "The IFS mechanism defines the
> > interface between the OS and the file systems.  One interface is the
memory
> > allocation allocated to the IFS.  The memory available to the IFS is
> > limited by the OS/2 kernel and is currently fixed at 2 MB. "  I cannot see
> > how a new IFS will override the 2MB IFS limitation built into the kernel.
> > There is a separate control program -- to allocate cache for the file
> > system and allow cache parameters to be set independently for each volume.
> >
> > The other features of the current HPFS (1996) are only sensible for a
> > server.  access control lists, DASD Limits, Separate Control Program.
> >
> > (OS/2 Magazine 1996. by Max and Sandy Eidswick).
>
> I don't mind you stating facts, but is this supposed to relate to the
> "bittedness" of the driver, or could your facts have been better placed in a
> response to a different article?

Maybe.  I did a follow up.  There are two HPFS386's.  IMHO That's relevant.

HPFS386 was the original HPFS.  I previously said HPFS386 was 16-bit .  The
386
moniker did not make the HPFS386 32-bit.  After doing some background reading
today for a follow-up I found the HPFS386 has changed significantly.  The
newer
HPFS386 bitness is unclear but if  it uses the IFS then the IFS is 16-bit and
the
IFS cache is limited to 2MB.  The HPFS386 that uses the IFS cannot be pure
32-bit.  Changing the internal bitness of the HPFS386 to 32-bit wouldn't
overcome
the IFS cache limit of 2MB imposed by the kernel.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 00:52:18
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> > Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :)
>
> Is that the best you have to offer?

Sure beats, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of
this?"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 04:57:08
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much.

>>>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
>>>>>>>>>>>> him, ...

>>>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?

>>>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>>>>>>> example.

>>>>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2
system
>>>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>>>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.

>>>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here

>>>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".

>>>>> I saw you just show up.

>>>> Not "here".

>>> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.

>> Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
>> cross-posted to that newsgroup either.

> Do tell...

Why?

>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.

>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>>>> don't "show up", including you.

>>> I never sleep; I am always here.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
> a year.

Illogical.

> You will see that the numbers are different.

So what?

> What other proof can there be?

Something more logical.

>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!

>>>> That's your problem.

>>> And my cleaner's as well.

>> On what basis do you make that claim?

> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!

How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?

>>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed
up.

>>>>>> Irrelevant.

>>>>> Is too!

>>>> Is that a statement of agreement?

>>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.

>> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.

> Unambiguousness is for wimps.

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?

>>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one
of
>>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.

>>>>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.

>>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!

>>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.

>>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
>>> so restricted.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

> All will be known come the Saturay drawing!

The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.

>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.

>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!

The future can't change the past.

>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!

>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.

>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....

>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>>>> fantasies.

>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?

>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."

> Read the line below and all will be answered.

You like to contradict yourself?

>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>>>> ones!

>>>> Ambiguous.

>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.

>> Irrelevant.

> Not to the crows.

The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.

>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.

>>>>> Irrelevant!

>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.

>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?

>> It demonstrates your poor memory.

> Wait until Saturday.

What will Saturday do?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 00:57:10
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>> That's your problem.
>
> >>> And my cleaner's as well.
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> > On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
>
> How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?

Dave has no idea what a "cleaner" even is.  Be kind.

> >>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed
up.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
> >>>>> Is too!
>
> >>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
>
> >>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>
> >> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
>
> > Unambiguousness is for wimps.
>
> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?

Don't worry Dave, he wasn't calling *you* a wimp.

> The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.

Prove it, if you think you can.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 00:59:05
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Joseph wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
>
> > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > HPFS386 I wrote about was the original HPFS written by Gordon Letwin for
MS
> > > Lan Manager.
> > > The other HPFS386 is more current and from IBM for their Lan Server.
> > >
> > > According to an article on the OS/2 HPFS.  "The IFS mechanism defines
the
> > > interface between the OS and the file systems.  One interface is the
memory
> > > allocation allocated to the IFS.  The memory available to the IFS is
> > > limited by the OS/2 kernel and is currently fixed at 2 MB. "  I cannot
see
> > > how a new IFS will override the 2MB IFS limitation built into the
kernel.
> > > There is a separate control program -- to allocate cache for the file
> > > system and allow cache parameters to be set independently for each
volume.
> > >
> > > The other features of the current HPFS (1996) are only sensible for a
> > > server.  access control lists, DASD Limits, Separate Control Program.
> > >
> > > (OS/2 Magazine 1996. by Max and Sandy Eidswick).
> >
> > I don't mind you stating facts, but is this supposed to relate to the
> > "bittedness" of the driver, or could your facts have been better placed in
a
> > response to a different article?
>
> Maybe.  I did a follow up.  There are two HPFS386's.  IMHO That's relevant.
>
> HPFS386 was the original HPFS.  I previously said HPFS386 was 16-bit .  The
386
> moniker did not make the HPFS386 32-bit.  After doing some background
reading
> today for a follow-up I found the HPFS386 has changed significantly.  The
newer
> HPFS386 bitness is unclear but if  it uses the IFS then the IFS is 16-bit
and the
> IFS cache is limited to 2MB.  The HPFS386 that uses the IFS cannot be pure
> 32-bit.  Changing the internal bitness of the HPFS386 to 32-bit wouldn't
overcome
> the IFS cache limit of 2MB imposed by the kernel.

I see.  Thanks for the explanation.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 04:57:29
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Andrew M. Glasgow writes:

>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?

>>>> The same place that the responding parties find the time.

>>> In a secret chest in his attic. . .

>> Illogical.

>>> along with his form of logic. . .

>> Better than yours.

>>> it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.

>> Also illogical.

>>> (Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)

>> Typical invective.

> Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :)

Is that the best you have to offer?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     29-Nov-99 21:24:05
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] says...
> >http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
> >OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
> >Linux:  +11 out of 20
> >MacOS:  +12 out of 20
> >
> >We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
> >version.
> >
>
> WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!

The current OS/2 port began in 1999.  The  OS/2 team began from square one
this year and they are using Odin technology -- some other Windows bigots
have spent time putting down and FUDing Odin.    Loser thy name is McCoy.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     29-Nov-99 21:47:12
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


John Hong wrote:

> josco ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
> : OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
> : Linux:  +11 out of 20
> : MacOS:  +12 out of 20
>
> : We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
> : version.
>
>         Wow, that was quick.  It was only like a two weeks ago we were at
> like +2 out of 20. :-)

I know.  It is fast.  Odin seems to be working and I'll buy the browser (V4.0)
if it works.  I'm wondering if the scale is linear or if 19 to 20 is the same
progression as 10 to 11.  : ) What are the units?  They promise to be finished
nearly after the Windows 4.0 version.

>         One thing that has struck me as being odd.  I would have honestly
> figured that the Linux version would have been completed by now.  I mean
> both BeOS and that Epoch/(??) one beat Linux to the punch by quite a while.

Yes. LINUX needed a new team and they too had to restart but they do not have
Odin technology.

Mozilla is rumored to be getting new $$ from Red Hat to kick start
development.  After AOL's purchase of Netscape the Mozilla team has progressed
slowly albeit in an open source project the slow progression does not kill a
project.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   30-Nov-99 06:38:10
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: Get Paid While You Surf The Web!!  3872

From: [e-mail]

Get paid while you surf the web here:
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=FCJ475


dd

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 30-Nov-99 14:21:29
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 03:28:14
Subj: fix pack installaton

From: "Ivan Tang" <[e-mail]>

Dear all,
I am trying to install an OS2 fix pack in the computers in our LAN. In order
to minimize the possible interpution to our users, I am using
the unattended mode and a response file to install the fix pack.

My question is: At the end of the installation, it prompts the users
to enter ctrl-alt-del to restart the computer. After rebooting
the PC, the fix pack installation program, fservice.exe, is still running. I
just wonder how to make this fservice.exe to terminated by
itself?  I have read books about the CID installation, and found
that there is a key word "RebootRequired" could make the PC to restart
itself by adding it into the response file, but the
response file comes with the fix pack  did not allow me to add such
word, what have I done wrong?

Thanks in advance,

Victor
email: [e-mail]



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Hong Kong Jockey Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     30-Nov-99 07:57:12
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 05:19:05
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail] (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)

John Hong ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] wrote:

: : Good job! Any plans for a non-MDI version? (Can't stand MDI
: : personally...)

:     What's MDI?

Multiple Document Interface (or something like that).  It is the type of
interface where you have multiple document windows all sitting inside the
main program windows (something like wordperfect or word).  This type of
interface is okay if you only have one document open at one time, or like
having your document windows tiled.  Otherwise, MDI tends to be a pain!

--
Stopped (SIGTTOU)         byron.
$

(c) copyright 1999 by Byron Desnoyers Winmill.
You are free to distribute and archive this message for personal use only.
Archiving this message for commercial purposes is expressly forbidden.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Calgary (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 07:55:28
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 05:19:05
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Well, it appears that Dimsdale's onslaught of useless responses to me
has stopped, at least for now, but he's gone into high gear playing with
Marty, and even took time out to do so with Malloy.  Here's today's
digest:

1> Where did I say "Which Tholen"?

Do you really expect an answer from Marty?

1> Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?

Do you really expect an answer from Marty?

2> Always slamming Dave, Joe. Don't take this thread too seriously. :P

Are you even familiar with Malloy's modus operandi?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 07:55:14
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 05:19:05
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451513

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
his "infantile game" on me as well.  Here's today's digest:

1> Dave again restates the obvious and adds nothing to the discussion.
1> No surprise there.

How ironic, coming from the person whose "infantile game" adds nothing
to the discussion.

2> Sure beats, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going
2> through all of this?"

How ironic, coming from the person who started down that path.

3> Dave has no idea what a "cleaner" even is.  Be kind.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

3> Don't worry Dave, he wasn't calling *you* a wimp.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say he was.

3> Prove it, if you think you can.

Unnecessary.  If you want to think that crows read this newsgroup, go
right ahead, Marty.



Ran across an interesting tidbit in comp.os.os2.misc.  Seems that the
poster below also disagrees with the position held by Timbol and Marty.
And Bass chooses to remain ignorant so he can avoid supporting my
position.

] From: Craig Benbow <[e-mail]>
] Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
] Subject: Re: Java 1.2 for OS/2
] Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:58:43 +1300
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
] References: <[e-mail]>
]
] You can't just look at the version numbers of the JDK you must look
] inside!
]
] If you look into JDK 1.1.8 from IBM you will see almost all the features
] in Suns JDK 1.2 BUT IBM are not calling it 1.2 because they don't think
] it is fit to be called 1.2 yet.
]
] I have just installed 1.1.8 from IBM with the swing extensions and it
] smokes!  In comparison to Suns VM on Windows JDK & JRE 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
] light years ahead in speed and stability.  Don't know about you but I am
] quite happy to wait to get this level of performance.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 09:46:06
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 10:24:19
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Eddie Dubourg" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...

<major snips>

> ...........  Any
> product shipping in 1998 that has Y2K issues is defective.  Any OS
> with security issues is defective.

So that means every OS is defective?  My rationale is that I have to patch
Solaris 2.7, RHlinux 6.x, WinNT 4 and Win9x for security issues with
approximately equal frequency .

>Win98SE is a marketing gimmick to raise money rather than lose money
>fixing a rushed-to-market product.

No arguments with that at all.

E





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Edinburgh University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      30-Nov-99 10:04:04
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 10:24:19
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 30 Nov 1999 07:55:57 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Well, it appears that Dimsdale's onslaught of useless responses to me
>has stopped, at least for now, but he's gone into high gear playing with
>Marty, and even took time out to do so with Malloy.  Here's today's
>digest:
>
>1> Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
>
>Do you really expect an answer from Marty?

No, Dave.

>1> Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?
>
>Do you really expect an answer from Marty?

No, Dave.

>2> Always slamming Dave, Joe. Don't take this thread too seriously. :P
>
>Are you even familiar with Malloy's modus operandi?

No, Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      30-Nov-99 11:24:16
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 10:24:19
Subj: Malloy Digest, volume 3287691768967869186972846247691476.24681689236892

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

Well, it seems that Malloy is at it again. Nuff said.

1> Below, a summary of everything useful Tholen's ever uttered on
1> uselessnet, his job:

What alleged uselessnet, Joe?

1> [Where are they?  Why, nowhere to be seen!]

I can't find your logical arguments either, Joe.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             30-Nov-99 12:59:22
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 10:24:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <81v8jb$b6t$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>....and again.
>
> >>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>> ....and again.
>
> >> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> > ....and again.
>
> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

...and again.

The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          29-Nov-99 13:11:12
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:38427934$8$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 09:27 PM,
>    [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:
>
> > >Bob Germer
<snip typical silliness>
> It probably will come as a shock to you, but using a company's property
> for purely personal use is against the law. It doesn't matter whether it
> is a corporate jet or a pencil, the principle is the same. Just as Lou
> Gerstner must reimburse IBM for the cost of personal travel on one of its
> planes and IBM must report the income to the IRS, I would have to
> reimburse the company for the use of the notebook and report the income.
> Even the President of the United States must reimburse the Air Force for
> personal or purely political travel on Air Force One.
>
<snip>
> Responsible people do what the law requires. Crooks such as Gates and
> idiots like you  apparently cannot be bothered with obeying the law. So,
> you then try to find fault with those who do by spreading lies.
>

A shock? Not quite "shock" but it wasn't a nod of acknowledgement shared
with my legal dept. and I. Please, Bob, do the group a favor and quote the
"law" that states you cannot use "a company's property for purely personal
use" - I think readers from the IRS would love to know of this law they all
missed. I'm sure the lawbreakers among us all would like to know which
section of USC we are breaking daily?

db


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Guru @ home (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 08:37:24
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451512.4769387687472^-474586709324

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Yet again Tholen has demonstrated that he uses this newsgroup for
non-entertainment purposes.  One can only wonder who pays him to be here.
Here's the another Tholen digest:

[nope]

There you have it!



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             29-Nov-99 13:27:28
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <81sofs$e3q$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>....and again.
>
> >> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> > ....and again.
>
> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

...and again.

The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  29-Nov-99 08:41:18
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451512^-343456324

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Tholen's back.  From time to time, it sounds like he's trying to have a
serious discussion, but I know better, having seen him use Eliza when others
were still responding seriously.  Of course, he may actually *be* Eliza, but
there's really nothing new to his responses.  He justs keeps ignoring the
request of most Usenet readers for him to respond substantively.  Here's
today's digest:

{sorry] {There ya' go, Tholen!]

No, don't thank me!


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 09:09:04
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:45:06 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:27:29 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:50:17 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Dave Tholen consulted a more enlightened intellect than his own to
bring forth
> >> >> >the following logical argument:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But even that wouldn't completely solve the
problem,
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you've also screwed up the correct
attributions.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely
solve the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem as Marty also screwed up the correct
attributions
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the real reason?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable,
Dave.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen
pasting in
> >> >> >> >>>>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond
to the
> >> >> >> >>>>> post.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> See what I mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > See what I mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Enjoying your hypocritical "infantile game" spewing forth "baby-talk
tripe" (by
> >> >> >your own admission) at tholenbot, Dave?
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged "infantile game", Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> I see no "infantile game" above, Marty.
> >
> >Reading comprehension problems?
>
> No.

An obvious lie.

> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the URL and
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the line that follows have the same level of
indentation, yet
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that
follows have
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same indentation yet Marty wrote one and you
wrote the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other explain anything else?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going
through all this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through
all this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How
predictable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable,
Dave.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all
this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Doesn't look like Eliza anymore.  Looks more like Dave Tholen
pasting in
> >> >> >> >>>>> canned lines from Eliza without actually having Eliza respond
to the post.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all
this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> See what I mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > See what I mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Enjoying your hypocritical "infantile game" spewing forth "baby-talk
tripe" (by
> >> >> >your own admission) at tholenbot, Dave?
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged "infantile game", Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> I see no infantile game above, Marty.
> >
> >Reading comprehension problems?
>
> No.

An obvious lie.

> >> >> What alleged "baby-talk tripe", Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See below.
> >>
> >> I see nothing below, Marty.
> >
> >I see you've removed the relevant evidence.  How convenient.
>
> That's a lie.

Incorrect, and quite ironic, coming from a proven liar.

> The evidence was removed by you, not I.

Incorrect.

> Snipping relevant information again, Marty?

You are erroneously presupposing that I have ever snipped relevant
information.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 09:12:12
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:46:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:20:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:22:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game"
any
> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
> >> >> >> comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How ironic.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged irony, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
> >>
> >> What alleged question, Marty?
> >
> >Reading comprehension problems?
>
> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.

No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash garden
to examine the relevant evidence.

> I stand corrected.

How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.

> >> You haven't asked me a question.
> >
> >That's a lie.
>
> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.

No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash garden
to examine the relevant evidence.

> I stand corrected.

How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.

> >> On the contrary, it was you who failed to answer the question.
> >
> >Incorrect.  You'll find my answer above.
>
> You haven't answered my question.

Incorrect.  Reading comprehension problems?

> What alleged irony?

See above.

> >> What alleged irony?
> >
> >I see you still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
>
> I don't have reading comprehension problems, Marty.

Incorrect.  See above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 09:14:28
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:48:52 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:26:10 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:53:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Obviously not, Marty.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement,
Dave.  I
> >> >> >> >say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you
think
> >> >> >> >my eyes are green?"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Balderdash.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Why,
> >> >> >nowhere to be seen!
> >> >>
> >> >> Typical invective.
> >> >
> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >
> >Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash garden.
>
> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?

Irrelevant.

> >> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >> >
> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
> >>
> >> Typical invective, Marty.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Poppycock.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >
> >Reading comprehension problems?
>
> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Not at all, Aaron.  Meanwhile, I see you failed to answer the question.  No
surprise there.

> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Incorrect.

Typical pontification.

> >> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >
> >Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash garden.
>
> What alleged Balderdash garden, Marty?

Irrelevant.

> >> >> >> >> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.  I'll spell it out
for the
> >> >> >> >feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my spelling of the word
"blatant".
> >> >> >> >Your question is a non sequitur.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying,
nothing
> >> >> >> >has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to identify
an
> >> >> >> >alleged "lie/game" any better than me.  Now didn't that make a lot
of
> >> >> >> >sense?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Poppycock.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How ironic, coming from someone who is actively tending his own
Balderdash
> >> >> >garden.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> I see no "Balderdash garden" above, Marty.
> >
> >See above.
>
> I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Aaron?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 09:19:13
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:50:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:55 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:27:54 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:18:31 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote, in
> >> >> >> >contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >One more time for the feeble-minded <snip>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged feeble-minded, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >See what I mean?
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged meaning, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See what I mean?
> >>
> >> No, Marty, I don't. Had I seen what you meant, I would not have asked
> >> you of your meaning.
> >
> >See what I mean?
>
> No, Marty, I don't.

See what I mean?

> >> >> >> >I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> >> >> >> >Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even
Tholen may
> >> >> >> >catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged Tholen, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Irrelevant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash.
> >> >
> >> >Typical pontification.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
> >nowhere to be seen!
>
> Balderdash.

Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
nowhere to be seen!

> >Note that you have yet to explain why knowing to which
> >Tholen I'm referring is not irrelevant.
>
> You erroneously presuppose

Incorrect, as no supposition was needed as shown by the following:
AD] What alleged Tholen, Marty?
M]  Irrelevant.
AD] Balderdash.

> that I think that knowing to which Tholen you
> are referring is not irrelevant.

Then why say, "Balderdash"?  Unless you are once again too busy tending your
Balderdash garden to form a logical argument.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 09:25:20
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example
of
> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Illogically,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
would
> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
not
> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
over
> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> >>
> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> >
> >Don't you know, Aaron?
>
> No.

You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy tending your
Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.

> >> Are you a two-year-old?
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, quite relevant.

Typical pontification.

> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> >
> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
relevant.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
nowhere to be seen!

> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
inappropriate
> >> >> >> > question?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
facilities.
> >> >>
> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
statement
> >> >above.
> >>
> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> >See above.
>
> Note: No comment.

No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?

> >> >> >> > Here you go:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> >> >> >> Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >>
> >> Self-evident.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash.

Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.

> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
painfully
> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> No comment.
> >> >
> >> >Note: no comment.
> >>
> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
> >
> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
>
> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.

No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.

> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
work.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> >Not at all, Aaron.
>
> Poppycock.

Typical pontification.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
> >> >>
> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> >> >
> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >>
> >> Self-evident.
> >
> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
Balderdash
> >garden.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.

Incorrect.

> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.

Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden in lieu
of a logical argument.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 09:55:09
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:57:21 -0500, Marty <[e-mail]> chose
to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:54:17 -0500, Marty <[e-mail]> chose
>> to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
much.
>> >>
>> >> >>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
him, ...
>> >>
>> >> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
>> >>
>> >> > Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>> >> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>> >>
>> >> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>> >> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>> >> example.
>> >
>> >Hmm..
>> >FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>> >Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>> >Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
>> >executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to
boot!"
>> >Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through
all of
>> >this?"
>> >
>> >Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>>
>> Since Tholen has shown up here I've ran a phone line to my COL box and
>> have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up. AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks
>> once and he answered every one of those posts with out suspecting.
>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>
>That's meerly par for the course for Tholen.  Over here in COOA, he has
>proceeded to respond to song lyrics (line by line in some cases), deny that
he
>had done so, then deny that they were song lyrics.  He's also had an ongoing
>infantile game with Eric Bennett in which Dave pretends that he is responding
>with Eliza generated phrases, even though it is obvious that Eliza would not
>have generated many of the responses he has posted.
>
>Here's a few examples for your amusement:
>Song #1:
>http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178
.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=7
>
>Song #2:
>http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538259667&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178
.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=9
>
>Song #3:
>http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538285665&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178
.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=11
>
>Song #4:
>http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178
.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=14
>
>Song #5:  which received several positive comments from other members of COOA
>and is a personal favorite of mine
>http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178
.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=19
>
>And one of Tholen's more recent postings in his infantile game with Eric
>Bennett:
>http://x34.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=551843330.2&CONTEXT=943850504.1821966368&
hitnum=0
>
>And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>
>- Marty

That's too gd funny. Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?


"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Nov-99 10:02:15
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:02
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 29 Nov 1999 05:58:43 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>> Marty wrote:
>
>>> I wrote:
>
>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>> example.
>
>>> Hmm..
>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
>>> executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to
boot!"
>>> Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through
all of
>>> this?"
>>>
>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>
>> Since Tholen has shown up here
>
>I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".

I saw you just show up. One minute you weren't there; the next you
were. Scared the hell out of me, it did!

>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>
>Irrelevant.

Is too!
>
>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>> those posts with out suspecting.
>
>Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.

Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>
>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>
>Fantasies can be that way.

You do not appear in any of my fantasies....well, not many of them
anyway...certainly not the really, really good ones!

> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.

Irrelevant!



"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          29-Nov-99 14:30:26
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Stephenson)

In article <3842703d$3$obot$[e-mail]>
       [e-mail] "Bob Germer" writes:

> [...]
>
> No American is forced to pay taxes to support an unelected head
> of state who lives 3,000 miles away and only sets foot in the
> country every decade or less.
>
> [...]

Sorry to stop you in mid-flow, Bob.  If it's Queen Liz 2 of the
Windsors we're discussing, the way I heard it is, we in the UK
pay for her upkeep (and that of her sprogs) and the rest of the
Commonwealth are allowed to borrow her, essentially free, over
the weekends.  A smart move on their part, I've always thought.

If it's otherwise, then yes I suppose I'd be a tad vexed too.

But look at it this way: the Windsors are prepared to do those
dirty jobs we commoners won't touch: read out hours of boring
speeches; shake hands with innumerable scumbag foreign leaders
(along with the nice ones, of course); oversee horse breeding;
help keep down the grouse population; house-sit those draughty
old palaces; test ickky recipes;...  Hey, it's not easy.  Dare
say they even have to be nice to King Billy when he comes round.
--
Andrew Stephenson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: DNS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     29-Nov-99 15:44:29
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: [e-mail] (Glen D)

In case anyone cares....

HPFS386 *is* fully 32-bit.  The following is taken from the HPFS FAQ
(hey there's a wierd concept, actually researching my facts before
posting a message!!)

-8<- snip

What's HPFS386?

HPFS386 is the 32-bit version of HPFS which is installed on servers
running IBM LAN
Server Advanced and Warp Server Advanced (the Entry level versions do
not include
HPFS386).

The benefits of HPFS386 over ordinary HPFS are:

 * Larger cache sizes
 * Direct connection between the filesystem and the network
 * Local security (need an account to access files, even at the
machine)

Note that despite the 386 in the name, the 32-bitness of HPFS386 is
not terribly
significant. File system drivers spend a lot of their time waiting for
the disk
controller to return sectors from the drive, and 32-bit code doesn't
wait any faster
than 16-bit code!

-8<-snip

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:17:24, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Kelly Robinson wrote:
> ---
> These are OS/2 users.  If you haven't noticed, they're no better than
> anyone else.  Plenty of them distribute an illegal copy of hpfs386.exe
> around the newsgroups so that they can FINALLY have part of their file
> systems using 32-bit code (unlike that 16-bit code which IBM feels is
> 32-bit, hence their labelling of OS/2 as a 32-bit OS, you see...)
> ----
>
> HPFS386 is not 32-bit.  It is 1.x code, 16-bit and is only useful for
> servers since it directly writes to the network card.
>
> I have some things to say about your references to "IQs", "desperate"
> and "stupid".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 11-28-99, 11:48:43 PM, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote
> regarding Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list:
>
>
> > I don't know about the other "Windows advocates" as you call them, but
> > I'm beginning to sense a different sort of conspiracy from certain
> OS/2
> > users whose quantity of brain cells almost matches their IQ (which
> must
> > be nearly 20).
> ....
> > These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying
> to
> > tell the truth.
>
> > And they're equally stupid and more willing to blindly chuck in
> anybody
> > who they feel should be in the group even if they are not by any means
> a
> > total windows advocate.
>
>
>
>

Glen D
-<remove Z from my e-mail Address>-

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RemarQ http://www.remarQ.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 16:25:03
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:24:15, [e-mail]
(Dave Tholen) wrote:

> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
> >>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
...
>
> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> > Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.  What
> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> example.
>
Dave,
 Was not that one troll you could aford to ignore?
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 16:24:26
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: FLAME WAS (Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:04:34, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:

> sheldon wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> > >Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > >> Ruel Smith <[e-mail]> wrote in message
[Snipped]
And not one ot the sods thought to get rid of the
mac/os2/Beos newsgroups,
Which were all in rapt fascination about something to do
with Microsofts windows GUI because its real real important
to us <end sarcasm html- leave marker in for users of IE who
think everyone should post and email in html>
Not one of the silly sods thought to change the misleading
subject indicator either.

Well Done People! Take a bow
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 16:24:29
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:11:21, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I will make you a wager. I will post $100,000 with an attorney licensed in
> the State of New Jersey and you will do the same.
 Hey fellas why limit it to the new jersy lawyers?? <tout
mode off>
:)
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 16:25:03
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: RE VT USAGES

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:59:40, [e-mail] wrote:

> Second, if you think you cannot manage your own time without a GUI,
> you just aren't thinking.

Those that even need a computer to schedule their time
should think again also

Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 16:25:04
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:23:31, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote:
[snipped and mac group trimmed
> IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
> decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
> of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
> tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
> PC as a BUSINESS tool.
>
> You obviously have no knowledge of the software subscription services, the
> technical support services, etc. IBM offers to OS/2users.
>
> Idiot savants who will pay $40 or more several times a year for the latest
> games that have a half-life of something less than a couple of months were
> unwilling to pay for technical support when the screwed up their
> Presentation Manager screen.
>
> Simpletons who buy several joystick type devices at costs of upwards of
> $30 each year to keep up with the latest games cannot understand that $100
> a year to keep their OS current is cheap.
>
> Mental midgets who complain that $100 a year is too much for added
> features, new device drivers, new capabilities, etc. don't mind paying
> just about as much to M$ for new versions of Windows every couple of years
> when one considers that one also has to upgrade OfficeSour each time for
> an additional $100 or so.
>
> IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
> professionals.
>
I don't mind paying for support if thats what I get but how
about posting here all the "contact methods" for IBM
support?
I suspect my Countries IBM does not support os/2 at all,
given the response level to email and phone contact.
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 15:58:07
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:12:25 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:46:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:20:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:22:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:17:11 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
Dave's part.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty? What alleged reading
>> >> >> >> comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How ironic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged irony, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged question, Marty?
>> >
>> >Reading comprehension problems?
>>
>> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
>
>No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
>to examine the relevant evidence.

Balderdash.

>> I stand corrected.
>
>How you stand is irrelevant.  The truth is relevant.

No comment.

>> >> You haven't asked me a question.
>> >
>> >That's a lie.
>>
>> I seem to have missed the question in previous posts.
>
>No surprise there.  You must have been too busy tending your Balderdash
garden
>to examine the relevant evidence.

I see you've failed to answer my question. No surprise there.

<snip>

>> >> On the contrary, it was you who failed to answer the question.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.  You'll find my answer above.
>>
>> You haven't answered my question.
>
>Incorrect.  Reading comprehension problems?

No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question. No surprise
there.

>> What alleged irony?
>
>See above.

Where is the irony you pointed out a few posts back? I saw no irony.

>> >> What alleged irony?
>> >
>> >I see you still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.
>>
>> I don't have reading comprehension problems, Marty.
>
>Incorrect.  See above.

Balderdash.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 15:50:15
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:25:41 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
example of
>> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Illogically,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
would
>> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
not
>> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
over
>> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
>> >
>> >Don't you know, Aaron?
>>
>> No.
>
>You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy tending
your
>Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.
>
>> >> Are you a two-year-old?
>> >
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> On the contrary, quite relevant.
>
>Typical pontification.

Balderdash.

>> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>> >
>> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
relevant.
>>
>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
>Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
>nowhere to be seen!

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
inappropriate
>> >> >> >> > question?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
facilities.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
statement
>> >> >above.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> Note: No comment.
>
>No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> > Here you go:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
>> >> >> >> Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >> >
>> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >>
>> >> Self-evident.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
>> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
painfully
>> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No comment.
>> >> >
>> >> >Note: no comment.
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
>> >
>> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
>>
>> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.
>
>No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.

What I appear to be doing does not matter.

>> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
>> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >See above.
>> >>
>> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >
>> >Not at all, Aaron.
>>
>> Poppycock.
>
>Typical pontification.  No surprise there.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
>> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
>> >> >
>> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >>
>> >> Self-evident.
>> >
>> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
Balderdash
>> >garden.
>>
>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>Incorrect.

Balderdash, Marty.

>> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.
>
>Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden in
lieu
>of a logical argument.

Balderdash.

I see you've snipped the evidence that you've snipped the evidence in
the last message of yours. How convenient.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 15:54:09
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:14:56 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:48:52 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:15 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:26:10 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:53:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
on Dave's part.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
"lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >> >> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Obviously not, Marty.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement,
Dave.  I
>> >> >> >> >say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you
think
>> >> >> >> >my eyes are green?"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Balderdash.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Why,
>> >> >> >nowhere to be seen!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Typical invective.
>> >> >
>> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash
garden.
>>
>> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?
>
>Irrelevant.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>> >> >
>> >> >Reading comprehension problems?
>> >>
>> >> Typical invective, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>>
>> Poppycock.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.

Balderdash.

>> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>> >
>> >Reading comprehension problems?
>>
>> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
>Not at all, Aaron.  Meanwhile, I see you failed to answer the question.  No
>surprise there.

No, I'm not having reading comprehension problems, Marty.

>> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Typical pontification.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.  I see you're still actively tending your own Balderdash
garden.
>>
>> What alleged Balderdash garden, Marty?
>
>Irrelevant.

Non sequitir.

>> >> >> >> >> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.  I'll spell it out
for the
>> >> >> >> >feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my spelling of the word
"blatant".
>> >> >> >> >Your question is a non sequitur.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying,
nothing
>> >> >> >> >has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to
identify an
>> >> >> >> >alleged "lie/game" any better than me.  Now didn't that make a
lot of
>> >> >> >> >sense?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Poppycock.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How ironic, coming from someone who is actively tending his own
Balderdash
>> >> >> >garden.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged "Balderdash garden", Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >See above.
>> >>
>> >> I see no "Balderdash garden" above, Marty.
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.
>
>Having more reading comprehension problems, Aaron?

No, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 15:52:11
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:19:26 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:50:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:21:55 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:27:54 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:18:31 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote, in
>> >> >> >> >contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >One more time for the feeble-minded <snip>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged feeble-minded, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged meaning, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >See what I mean?
>> >>
>> >> No, Marty, I don't. Had I seen what you meant, I would not have asked
>> >> you of your meaning.
>> >
>> >See what I mean?
>>
>> No, Marty, I don't.
>
>See what I mean?

No, Marty, I don't.

>> >> >> >> >I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
>> >> >> >> >Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even
Tholen may
>> >> >> >> >catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged Tholen, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Irrelevant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Balderdash.
>> >> >
>> >> >Typical pontification.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
>> >nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
>nowhere to be seen!

Balderdash.

>> >Note that you have yet to explain why knowing to which
>> >Tholen I'm referring is not irrelevant.
>>
>> You erroneously presuppose
>
>Incorrect, as no supposition was needed as shown by the following:
>AD] What alleged Tholen, Marty?
>M]  Irrelevant.
>AD] Balderdash.

Where did I say "Which Tholen"?

>> that I think that knowing to which Tholen you
>> are referring is not irrelevant.
>
>Then why say, "Balderdash"?  Unless you are once again too busy tending your
>Balderdash garden to form a logical argument.

Where did i say "Which Tholen", Marty?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Nov-99 16:24:26
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:40:02, [e-mail] (sheldon)
wrote:
[snipped]
> Steve Sheldon                          email: [e-mail]
> BSCS/MCSE                              url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
> Now Powered by Windows CE! :)
Which obviously does not allow for newsgroup subject setting
or selective newsgroup posting
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      29-Nov-99 16:05:19
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451512.4769387687472^-474586709324

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:37:48 -0500, Joe Malloy wrote:

>Yet again Tholen has demonstrated that he uses this newsgroup for
>non-entertainment purposes.  One can only wonder who pays him to be here.
>Here's the another Tholen digest:
>
>[nope]
>
>There you have it!

Always slamming Dave, Joe. Don't take this thread too seriously. :P




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 17:04:27
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Csaba Raduly write:
> [e-mail] (Lars P Ormberg) wrote in

> >> The problem with M$ is that they are not living by those laws.
> >> M$ _is_ forcing me to "eat at their restaurant".
> >
> >How?  Does MS send people to your home, tie up your family, hold a match
> >over a gas canister, and force you to sign on the dotted line for
> >Windows 2000?
>
> No, but they say to the PC vendors: preload WinWhatever on EVERY machine
> you sell, OR ELSE we won't give you WinWhatever OEM licenses and you'll be
> out of business in no time.

Okay, so in other words you don't think it should be legal for Microsoft to
be involved in a contract?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 17:09:17
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Jerry Prather write:
> (Lars P Ormberg) writes:

> :>How?  Does MS send people to your home, tie up your family, hold a match
> :>over a gas canister, and force you to sign on the dotted line for Windows
> :>2000?
>
> Lars, I was going to respond to this with a flame that you should
> have read the rest of my post before replying so knee-jerkily,

I did read it.

Does Microsoft send people to force you to buy their products?  Which gun is
being placed at your skull?

Or is it a matter of Microsoft "forcing you" to buy the product by providing
a valued product at an affordable rate?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  29-Nov-99 17:12:01
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 11:23:03
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Glenn Davies write:
> On 29 Nov 1999 08:22:12 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> >> The main problem is being obscured by examples that do not apply.  MS
> >> is a MONOPOLY.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> It has been ruled to be an monopoly under US law.

Well, being "ruled a monopoly under US Law" doesn't make it a monopoly.

> >> When a business becomes a monopoly
> >
> >Unless government gives it a hand, a business cannot become a monopoly.
>
> Time to sign up for some buisness and economic classes for next term.

Time to ask a simple question: how does this monopoly keep a competitor from
forming.  All that is needed is a mechanism.

> >The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.
>
> As if you have even read it let alone understand it.

Read, understood, almost puked.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           30-Nov-99 08:56:23
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/30/99 at
12:00 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jack Troughton) said:

> I moved here from Ontario two and a half years ago and for me, it's  not
> really a big deal.  They certainly do not prevent anyone from  posting
> things in english, but they do want to see french everywhere  because
> things written in public contribute a lot to the overall  literacy of a
> culture.

The Attorney General of Quebec prosecuted the mayor and fire chief of a
town in southern Quebec near the US border because the refused to have
their new fire truck's sign repainted to use French when a new census
showed that there were 2 more Francophones in the town than Anglophones.

That is not a free country.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     30-Nov-99 14:06:13
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: [e-mail] (Glen D)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:12:46, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:

> HPFS386 I wrote about was the original HPFS written by Gordon Letwin for MS
> Lan Manager.
> The other HPFS386 is more current and from IBM for their Lan Server.
>
I've never heard of the original HPFS being referred to as HPFS386.
The original HPFS was written for OS/2 v1.2 I believe.

> According to an article on the OS/2 HPFS.  "The IFS mechanism defines the
> interface between the OS and the file systems.  One interface is the memory
> allocation allocated to the IFS.  The memory available to the IFS is
> limited by the OS/2 kernel and is currently fixed at 2 MB. "  I cannot see
> how a new IFS will override the 2MB IFS limitation built into the kernel.
> There is a separate control program -- to allocate cache for the file
> system and allow cache parameters to be set independently for each volume.
>
The fact is that HPFS386 *can* have a cache larger than 2MB.  I don't
know much about IFS internals so I can't explain how.

> The other features of the current HPFS (1996) are only sensible for a
> server.  access control lists, DASD Limits, Separate Control Program.
>
> (OS/2 Magazine 1996. by Max and Sandy Eidswick).
>
> Marty wrote:
>
> > Glen D wrote:
> > >
> > > In case anyone cares....
> > >
> > > HPFS386 *is* fully 32-bit.
> >
> > Does it come in the form of an IFS?  I don't know because I haven't
> > tried it.  If so, then it has part of its code in 16 bit land.  Perhaps
> > someone who uses it can run EXEHDR on it (or some similar utility) and
> > see if it has any 16 bit segments.
> >
> > > The following is taken from the HPFS FAQ
> >
> > That snippet didn't say that it was 100% 32 bit code.
> >
> > - Marty
>

Glen D
-<remove Z from my e-mail Address>-

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RemarQ http://www.remarQ.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 09:14:21
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451513

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <81vvth$2e9$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
> his "infantile game" on me as well.

How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 09:24:22
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > It's not a cultural thing, it's a cognitive association thing.  New users
> have
> > to learn the association between command and action no matter what that
> > command is called.
> >
>
> Back then the children didn't spend their formative years, playing VCR's,
> Nintendo or watching cartoons that use computer jargon in everyday life.
> These things would make that association far more expeditious. This returns
> it to a 'cultural thing.'

Even if this is the case it benefits CLI and GUI alike.  But I don't think it
is; the things you talk about expose at best very limited functionality and
usually do it through very clunky interfaces.  They also avoid the jargon that
is typical of computer applications.

Modern applications have literally hundreds of functions.  VCRs have, at best,
a few tens.  Nintendo machines have even fewer than that.  You're just not
going to get a lot of those command/function associations out of your typical
VCR.

> > There's nothing magic about a GUI; you're just replacing iconics for text.
> > Most of the time you end up putting in text too otherwise the user just
> can't
> > figure it out.  Any wins you get from the GUI come from increased
> bandwidth;
> > you can display a lot more information in the same space and you have
> > additional ways of manipulating the interface.
> >
> > But that doesn't improve the initial learning curve.
> >
>
> Yes it does, because clues to CLI options that are invisible are shown to
> the user (baloon help, tooltips, hints applets etc) while they are
> performing the operation.

All of this was possible using textual interfaces.  The information density
wasn't as good is all.

FWIW it's interesting to me to see how a lot of applications have returned to
the old "give them a big menu" approach, even if it now includes pictures.
Simple menus work better than iconic interfaces.

> > Maybe someone will eventually prove me wrong about this but I don't see
> how
> > we're going to be able to avoid the necessity of learning what the
> possible
> > actions actually do.  I don't think it's a management issue at all.
> >
> > (I take that back.  I think that a verbal/visual interface would do it.
> If
> > the computer can see and understand like a human the interface would be
> really
> > natural.)
> >
>
> How well does your cli function without a keyboard.  GUI's do this all the
> time.

You're changing the subject but as it turns out textual interfaces (of which
CLIs are a subset) can do the same things that GUIs can do without a
keyboard.  A lot of kiosk systems worked that way a few years ago you might
recall.

> > > What I stated is true, I've taught beginning users on eight different
> > > platforms over the course of my career, and the curves ( average
> > > functionality with course materials/time ) come out as I stated.  I did
> do a
> > > study on this 6 or so years ago, but didn't keep a copy.  Since learning
> is
> > > somewhat subjective, I could only track my observations.
> >
> > I've done it too, on at least as many platforms and over a period of
> decades.
> > I taught people through the command line era, through the menu-driven era,
> > through the text-based point-and-click era, and in the GUI era.  I found
> that
> > bringing someone new up to speed slowed down with the addition of the
> mouse.
> >
>
> Which platforms and where did you start. When I teach I start with a session
> on the interface itself, if the interface includes a mouse that is covered.

I started back with really early PCs (the TRS-80 and Apple II) and migrated up
to minis (System/32, /36, VAX/VMS, UNIX) and mainframes (MVS, VPS) while
simultaneously tracking advances in PCs (CP/M, MS-DOS, MacOS, GEM, TOS,
Windows).  I taught people how to use all of these things.  Often I taught the
people who failed to learn via traditional teachers.

My teaching style is goal-oriented: Teach a path through the interface such
that they are doing something useful with a minimum of things to learn, then
expand on the principles they're already using as they become comfortable with
those features.  This is important because exposing them to many interface
features right away just confuses them.  Most of the time I can get a user
working with a general-purpose system within an hour or two even if they have
never touched a computer before.

Particularly enlightening is watching someone like that try to manage the
mouse.  They have a hard time with it.  Positioning comes fairly quickly but
click and double click are tough.  Often they'll spend as much time getting
that down pat as they do learning the critical features of what they're really
interested in using.

Other than that little bit of tedium I've found no significant difference in
learning curve between textual and graphical interfaces.

> > Unfortunately the design of most GUI programs is such that once you're
> over
> > the learning curve they become an efficiency inhibitor.  Mouse input
> bandwidth
> > is just too slow for a lot of applications.
> >
>
> Only CAD and such specialized ones, that's why digitizer's in that field
> have up to sixteen buttons on the puck.

I don't really know what your point is?  Certainly there are pointer
interfaces with a lot more bandwidth than is typical, but they're certainly
not what we were talking about and they still don't help with a variety of
common applications (eg a wordprocessor).

> Let's take file management for a second here.  Are you saying that a '$' and
> some arcane commands ( ls, cp, mv etc ) or a 'c:\' prompt and other arcane
> commands (dir, copy, move etc.) are easier for a beginner to understand than
> a GUI displaying a tree of folders containing sub folders?

Oh no, I'm not saying that at all.  There's no reason why you can't show that
same tree in either interface, something that a lot of GUI advocates readily
forget.

What I'm saying that a menu-driven (ie textual) interface that shows that tree
is going to be easier to learn than a point-and-click interface, assuming that
you're starting from scratch with both.  This is because there are a lot
(close to half a dozen) of gestural input conventions that have to be learned
prior to being able to do anything at all with the point-and-click interface.

Another thing I'm trying to point out is that there are places where the
arcane system works a lot better than a GUI system in time-to-usefulness.
Launching applications is one of them.  Getting someone to type "edit" is a
lot easier than teaching them how to double-click on an editor icon; they
don't have to learn special motor skills first.

Considering that the first and most common thing anyone does with a computer
is launch an application I think this is kind of significant to the learning
curve.

> > I find myself doing this more and more too.  Object/action is a very
> useful
> > paradigm.  But it doesn't alleviate you from the need to learn what the
> > commands do (same cognitive process as the command line) and it doesn't
> > improve the learning time for mouse gestures (the most difficult part of
> the
> > process for beginning users in my experience).
> >
>
> Actualy I think it does, the menu is an assciative function, it, at the
> least gives the user a subset of the available possible actions so they
> aren't casting fruitlessly for the invalid options.

Limiting to appropriate actions has been handled in menuing systems for years,
long before there was a GUI interface.  But somewhere along the line you have
to associate the menu item with the actual function and that takes time.
Furthermore right-click object/action systems are someone difficult to learn
because there are usually no cues as to which objects have them and which
don't.

jim frost
[e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 09:39:10
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Timberwoof wrote:
> > GUIs were supposed to improve things by making the interface more closely
> > model things that users were already familiar with in the real world, thus
> > eliminating the need for making associations.  Unfortunately they didn't;
they
> > just substituted iconics for words, and along the way added whole new
> > obstacles in the form of interaction gestures (click, double-click, drag,
> > window manipulation, menu manipulation, etc) that must be learned before
you
> > can even make use of the associations.  So GUIs not only required the
> > development of cognitive links but also the development of new motor
skills!
> > That was a big step backwards in terms of learning curve.
>
> Mousing is a relatively simple motor skill. The slight expense required to
> learn clicking, doubleclicking, and dragging more than makes up for the
> inconvenience lost in storing all the available commands in easily
> accessible menus.

Ok, at least an admission that there is an additional learning curve to
operate the mouse.  A step in the right direction.  Now we get into more
interesting things.  How do you know which things on the display can be
clicked/double-clicked/dragged/dropped-on?  Those need to be learned too, and
none of the common GUI systems in use today provide any sort of visual cue.
You have to guess!  (Or read the available documentation, if there *is*
available documentation.)  That's just not going to help the learning curve.
A purely menu-driven system is faster to learn because it displays only the
available options.

> The visual metaphor presented by a well-designed user interface is, for
> certain users, vastly superior to a verbal-command metaphor. Creating a
> GUI opened the use of computers to several cognitive styles that found
> difficulty with them before.

Perhaps this is true, although I think what really opened the use of computers
up was dropping price-points.  In any case my point isn't that GUI systems are
bad, but that they're not easier to learn.  At best they are slightly harder
to learn because you have to develop some additional motor skills, and
commonly they're a lot harder to learn because so many things that you can do
have no visual cues at all.

> On the other hand, I am open to evidence that learning mousing is an
> unacceptable expense. An art/graphics program driven by a command-line
> interface that's better than any jouse-driven one would be a good start.

Ahh, you pick an application that's particularly well-suited to pointer-driven
input.  Tit for tat: wordprocessors are debilitated by mouse-only input (or
even, as in the case of Word, mouse-centric input).  In either case it pays to
learn effective use of the input device.

Combination interfaces have proven the most powerful.  But let's not kid
ourselves: there is no magic bullet when it comes to teaching people to use
this stuff.  It's not easy just because it's a visual interface.

> > And that was back when GUI interfaces were *simple*.  They've become ever
more
> > subtle and complex, often in counterproductive ways (don't get me started
on
> > toolbars).
>
> Oh, no, let's get started on toolbars. Thesis: Toolbars are the result of
> Microsoft's reliance on overly complex keybard command equivalents and
> stuffing applications to the gills with unneeded features so that the
> commonly used features are always buried several layers deep in the menu
> structure. In short, toolbars are a badly overused way out of sticky UI
> problems.

It seems we readily agree. :-)  Technically speaking, however, Microsoft
didn't start the trend.  They sure did push it though.

Cheers,

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  30-Nov-99 09:50:09
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451513.347646278^-546358730562094901

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

As if Tholen's "infantile game" with everyone and anyone wasn't enough, he
continues his "infantile game" on me as well.  Here's today's digest:

[Sorry, Charlie!]

No, no thanks necessary!



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  30-Nov-99 15:02:27
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 14:39:12
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: [e-mail] (Holger Veit)

On 30 Nov 1999 14:06:26 GMT, Glen D <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:12:46, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> HPFS386 I wrote about was the original HPFS written by Gordon Letwin for MS
>> Lan Manager.
>> The other HPFS386 is more current and from IBM for their Lan Server.
>>
>I've never heard of the original HPFS being referred to as HPFS386.
>The original HPFS was written for OS/2 v1.2 I believe.
>
>> According to an article on the OS/2 HPFS.  "The IFS mechanism defines the
>> interface between the OS and the file systems.  One interface is the memory
>> allocation allocated to the IFS.  The memory available to the IFS is
>> limited by the OS/2 kernel and is currently fixed at 2 MB. "  I cannot see
>> how a new IFS will override the 2MB IFS limitation built into the kernel.
>> There is a separate control program -- to allocate cache for the file
>> system and allow cache parameters to be set independently for each volume.
>>
>The fact is that HPFS386 *can* have a cache larger than 2MB.  I don't
>know much about IFS internals so I can't explain how.

It is not a matter of the IFS specification but of the way the cache
is implemented in the actual IFS driver. The cache is NO RESTRICTION
of the kernel! AFAIK, the 2MB limit relates to the way a cache element
is described, namely by a 16 bit index, allowing 65K of such cache elements.
This results in a maximum of 2MB of cache area.

>> The other features of the current HPFS (1996) are only sensible for a
>> server.  access control lists, DASD Limits, Separate Control Program.

HPFS.IFS knows about ACLs, it is just that there is no public API to access
them.

Holger
--
If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: GMD-AiS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 17:48:09
  To: All                                               30-Nov-99 19:49:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Forrest Gehrke <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> The Attorney General of Quebec prosecuted the mayor and fire chief of a
> town in southern Quebec near the US border because the refused to have
> their new fire truck's sign repainted to use French when a new census
> showed that there were 2 more Francophones in the town than Anglophones.
>
> That is not a free country.
>

An interesting sidelight to all this: The Wall Street Journal
reported a listing of economic freedom by country which was
jointly done by WSJ and the Heritage Foundation.
The ranking of economically Free countries:

  1. HongKong
  2. Singapore
  3. New Zealand
  4. Bahrain
     Luxembourg
     U.S.
  7. Ireland
  8. Australia
     Switzerland
     U.K.

Under Mostly Free the list starts off with:

  11. Canada.
//

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 23:15:02
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:04
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451513

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
>> his "infantile game" on me as well.

> How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.

On what basis do you make that claim?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 23:38:14
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Why should I bother?

Because you bothered to post something ambiguous in the first place.

> Contrary to your claim, you do infer anything that suits your
> "argument," as I have indicated.

As you have pontificated.  Where's your evidence?

> That just happens to be your Modus Operandi, Dave.

Yet another example of your pontification.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 18:39:23
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote:
>
> Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

How ironic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            30-Nov-99 16:21:08
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Eddie Dubourg wrote:

> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
>
> <major snips>
>
> > ...........  Any
> > product shipping in 1998 that has Y2K issues is defective.  Any OS
> > with security issues is defective.
>
> So that means every OS is defective?  My rationale is that I have to patch
> Solaris 2.7, RHlinux 6.x, WinNT 4 and Win9x for security issues with
> approximately equal frequency .

Any OS shipping in 1997 and onward that has unresolved Y2K issues is
defective.  There is no excuse but defective work to justify not resolving
Y2K problems in a 1997 release of any OS.

IMHO Security is all together different than Y2K.

IMHO FreeBSD is as good as it gets for security -- comments?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 18:44:15
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > >> >> >> example of
> > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
> > > >> >would
> > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
> > > >> >not
> > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
> > > >> >over
> > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > >
> > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > >
> > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> >
> > Don't you know, Aaron?
>
> I see you didn't answer the question.

Incorrect.

> How predictable.

Logic can be quite predictable.

> > > Are you a two-year-old?
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Evidence, please.

Unnecessary.

> > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> >
> > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > relevant.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

Self-evident.

> > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > >> >> > question?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > >> >facilities.
> > > >>
> > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > >
> > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > > >statement
> > > >above.
> > >
> > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> > See above.
>
> Typical circular reasoning.

What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?

> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?

Don't you know?

> Why, nowhere to be seen!

I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise there.

> > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> > > >> >> Marty?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > >
> > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > Self-evident.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> On the contrary.

Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
nowhere to be seen!

> > > >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > >> >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > > >> >painfully
> > > >> >obvious by now anyway.
> > > >>
> > > >> No comment.
> > > >
> > > >Note: no comment.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
> >
> > Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
>
> Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

> > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried
> > > >> >to
> > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
> > > >> >work.
> > > >>
> > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > >
> > > >See above.
> > >
> > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> > Not at all, Aaron.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

Don't you know, tholenbot?

> > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
> > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > >>
> > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > >
> > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > Self-evident.
> >
> > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> > Balderdash
> > garden.
>
> Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka Chris
> Pott).

Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 23:22:20
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>....and again.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>> ....and again.

>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>> ....and again.

>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> ....and again.

Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

The same response again for the reader's reference:

> According to your statement, under what conditions
> does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
> functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

Unnecessary, Lucien, again.  I will restore my two simple tests,
however, given that you've never taken them.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

Note again the pat "refusal" to take the two simple tests:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.
]
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
]
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
]
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
]
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
]
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
]
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 23:21:06
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

>>>>> On what basis do you make this claim?

>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.

>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

> See what I mean?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 23:20:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him, ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to
get
>>>>>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.

>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.
What
>>>>>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic,
for
>>>>>>>>>>> example.

>>>>>>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>>>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>>>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have
run
>>>>>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2
system
>>>>>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you
are
>>>>>>>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.

>>>>>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here

>>>>>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".

>>>>>>> I saw you just show up.

>>>>>> Not "here".

>>>>> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.

>>>> Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
>>>> cross-posted to that newsgroup either.

>>> Do tell...

>> Why?

> Inquiring minds want to know!

They already know that this is not the first time I've had articles
cross-posted to that newsgroup.

>>>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.

>>>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
>>>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>>>>>> don't "show up", including you.

>>>>> I never sleep; I am always here.

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
>>> a year.

>> Illogical.

>>> You will see that the numbers are different.

>> So what?

>>> What other proof can there be?

>> Something more logical.

> Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
> mathematics.

Should I be?

> I don't have time to explain it all

Yet you have time to respond.

> so just take my word on it.

I'd rather not.

>>>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!

>>>>>> That's your problem.

>>>>> And my cleaner's as well.

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?

>>> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!

>> How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?

> He had to clean them.

How does that make him scared?

> I'd just had a heaping helping of chili, too.
> Nasty affair, that.

Perhaps you should consider wearing diapers.

>>>>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed
up.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.

>>>>>>> Is too!

>>>>>> Is that a statement of agreement?

>>>>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.

>>>> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.

>>> Unambiguousness is for wimps.

>> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?

> On the basis that I'm neither unambiguous, nor a wimp.

Illogical.

>>>>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one
of
>>>>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.

>>>>>>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.

>>>>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>>>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!

>>>>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.

>>>>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
>>>>> so restricted.

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> All will be known come the Saturay drawing!

>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

> Maybe not yours, but if we hit it big my memory's reality will be
> greatly changed!

Also illogical.

>>>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>>>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.

>>>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.

>>>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

>>> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!

>> The future can't change the past.

> But it can buy a better present!

Irrelevant, given that the discussion was about the past.

>>>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!

>>>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.

>>>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....

>>>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>>>>>> fantasies.

>>>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?

>>>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."

>>> Read the line below and all will be answered.

>> You like to contradict yourself?

> Among other things I like to do to myself.

Why?

>>>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>>>>>> ones!

>>>>>> Ambiguous.

>>>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.

>>>> Irrelevant.

>>> Not to the crows.

>> The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.

> How can you be so sure?

Crows can't read.

>>>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.

>>>>>>> Irrelevant!

>>>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.

>>>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?

>>>> It demonstrates your poor memory.

>>> Wait until Saturday.

>> What will Saturday do?

> You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)

I doubt it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         30-Nov-99 23:42:16
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> The answer to your question is no, Dave.

Then what makes you think that "measure up" ends in a preposition,
Curtis?

> Does that prove anything?

It proves that none of those examples end in a preposition, Curtis.

> Again, the answer is no.

Wrong again, Curtis.  "Inept."

> "Up on the rooftop, Reinderr pause. Out jumps good ol' Santa Claus."
>
> "Up on the attic is where we keep the fine china."
>
> "Up until now, I just *thought* you were inept -- now I'm sure."

Irrelevant, Curtis, given that your excuse was to avoid writing
a preposition at the end, thus the only relevant examples are
those with "up" at the end.

> I did, Dave,

Balderdash, Curtis.

> but you simply ignored and deleted it,

Balderdash, Curtis.

> using the "justification" you outlined above.

That's your justification, Curtis, not mine.

> You should know.

Yeah; I've watched you do it so much.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 18:49:25
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Marty writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > >> >>> blatant.
> > > >>
> > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > >>
> > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > >> > blatant.
> > > >>
> > > >> Illogically,
> > > >
> > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
> > > >would
> > > >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had not
> > > >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
> > > >over
> > > >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > >
> > > Typical invective, Marty.
> >
> > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

Self-evident.

> > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > >>
> > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> > > >> > question?
> > > >>
> > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > >
> > > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > >facilities.
> > >
> > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > statement
> > above.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

Don't you know, Eric?

> > > >> > Here you go:
> > > >>
> > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > >>
> > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> > > >> Marty?
> > > >
> > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > >
> > > Balderdash, Marty.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.

If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he thinks, what
other choice do I have?

> > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > >>
> > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > >
> > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's painfully
> > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > >
> > > No comment.
> >
> > Note: no comment.
>
> Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?

How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile little games".

> > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > >>
> > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
> > > >>
> > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > >
> > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
> > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
> > > >work.
> > >
> > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >
> > See above.
>
> Typical circular reasoning.

What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?

> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?

Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?

> Why, nowhere to be seen!

Incorrect.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 19:48:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.

Illogical, as there is no such cross-posting to note.

> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Marty writes:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > >> >>> blatant.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > > >> >> example
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > >> > blatant.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Illogically,
> > > > >
> > > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
> > > > >would
> > > > >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
> > > > >not
> > > > >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> > > > >Get
> > > > >over
> > > > >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > >
> > > > Typical invective, Marty.
> > >
> > > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Self-evident.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> > > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> > > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > >> > inappropriate
> > > > >> > question?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > >facilities.
> > > >
> > > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > >
> > > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > > statement
> > > above.
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> Don't you know, Eric?

I see that, having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect
the burden of proof.  Ineffective.

> > > > >> > Here you go:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > >> question,
> > > > >> Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > >
> > > > Balderdash, Marty.
> > >
> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
>
> If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he thinks,
> what
> other choice do I have?

Don't you know?

> > > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > > > >painfully
> > > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > > >
> > > > No comment.
> > >
> > > Note: no comment.
> >
> > Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile little
> games".

What allegedly "infantile" game do I allegedly "enjoy"?

> > > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > >> > embarassment.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried
> > > > >to
> > > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
> > > > >work.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Typical circular reasoning.
>
> What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?

Taking reading comprehension lessons from Aaron Dimsdale again, Marty?

> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?
>
> > Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
> Incorrect.

Your stroll down irrelevancy lane is predictable, Marty.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 10:38:24
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Malloy Digest, volume 3287691768967869186972846247691476.2468168923

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <QtO04.6957$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Well, it seems that Malloy is at it again. Nuff said.

What Malloy is at is not relevant.  What you can prove is relevant.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 10:41:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <81sob5$e3q$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> >>>> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
>
> >>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
> > I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.
>
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

See what I mean?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 10:44:16
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <bhx04.5937$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:25:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> >> >> >> >> >>> word blatant.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> >> >> >> >> >> example of
> >> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> >> >> >> >> > blatant.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Illogically,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
> >> >> >> >I would
> >> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
> >> >> >> >had not
> >> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> >> >> >> >Get over
> >> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >Don't you know, Aaron?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy
> >tending your
> >Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.
> >
> >> >> Are you a two-year-old?
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant.
> >>
> >> On the contrary, quite relevant.
> >
> >Typical pontification.
>
> Balderdash.

Incorrect.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills to
recognize that fact.

> >> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> >> >
> >> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> >> >relevant.
> >>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> >
> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
> >nowhere to be seen!
>
> Balderdash.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> >> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
> >> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> >> >> >> >> > inappropriate
> >> >> >> >> > question?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> >> >> >> >facilities.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> >> >> >statement
> >> >> >above.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> Note: No comment.
> >
> >No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?
>
> Balderdash.

Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

> >> >> >> >> > Here you go:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> >> >> >> >> question,
> >> >> >> >> Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >>
> >> >> Self-evident.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.
>
> Balderdash.

Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> >> >> >> >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> >> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> >> >> >> >painfully
> >> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No comment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Note: no comment.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
> >>
> >> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.
> >
> >No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.
>
> What I appear to be doing does not matter.

What does not matter is irrelevant.  What you can prove is relevant.

> >> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> >> >> >> >> > embarassment.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> >> >> >> >tried to
> >> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> >> >> >> >didn't work.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >See above.
> >> >>
> >> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >
> >> >Not at all, Aaron.
> >>
> >> Poppycock.
> >
> >Typical pontification.  No surprise there.
>
> Balderdash.

Irrelevant.

> >> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part
> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >>
> >> >> Self-evident.
> >> >
> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> >> >Balderdash
> >> >garden.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> >> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.
> >
> >Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden
> >in lieu
> >of a logical argument.
>
> Balderdash.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> I see you've snipped the evidence that you've snipped the evidence in
> the last message of yours. How convenient.

Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Aaron?  How predictable.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           30-Nov-99 10:25:06
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-6vm8ORdhsZwN@localhost>, on 11/29/99 at 04:25 PM,
   [e-mail] (Richard A Crane) said:

> > IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
> > professionals.
> >
> I don't mind paying for support if thats what I get but how  about
> posting here all the "contact methods" for IBM  support?
> I suspect my Countries IBM does not support os/2 at all,
> given the response level to email and phone contact

Since I believe this is a truly honest request, I made some calls to IBM.
Support contracts for OS/2 Warp outside the US and Canada are handled by a
division called International Assist, 7100 Highland Parkway, Smryna, GA
30082. Their telephone number is 1-770-863-1234.

I would think that someone at IBM Australia would be able to provide you
with information on International Assist.  When one wants information, one
gives the operator who answers the call his/her name, company if
applicable, address, phone number, and fax number. Then they contact you
with the information as I understand it.

> Richard A Crane
> Barrister & Solicitor


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.0 Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 10:46:27
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >
> > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Marty writes:
> > >>
> > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > >> >>> blatant.
> > >>
> > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > >>
> > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > >> > blatant.
> > >>
> > >> Illogically,
> > >
> > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
> > >would
> > >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had not
> > >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
> > >over
> > >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> >
> > Typical invective, Marty.
>
> Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > >> >> find embarassing:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > >>
> > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> > >> > question?
> > >>
> > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > >
> > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > >facilities.
> >
> > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> statement
> above.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> > >> > Here you go:
> > >>
> > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > >>
> > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> > >> Marty?
> > >
> > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >
> > Balderdash, Marty.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.

> > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > >>
> > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > >
> > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's painfully
> > >obvious by now anyway.
> >
> > No comment.
>
> Note: no comment.

Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?

> > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > >>
> > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
> > >>
> > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > >
> > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
> > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
> > >work.
> >
> > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>
> See above.

Typical circular reasoning.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Why, nowhere to be seen!

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 10:50:01
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >
> > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Marty writes:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > >> >> >> example of
> > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > >> >> > blatant.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Illogically,
> > >> >
> > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
> > >> >would
> > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
> > >> >not
> > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
> > >> >over
> > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > >>
> > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > >
> > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> >
> > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
>
> Don't you know, Aaron?

I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.

> > Are you a two-year-old?
>
> Irrelevant.

Evidence, please.

> > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>
> What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> relevant.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > >> >> > inappropriate
> > >> >> > question?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > >> >
> > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > >> >facilities.
> > >>
> > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > >
> > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > >statement
> > >above.
> >
> > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> See above.

Typical circular reasoning.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Why, nowhere to be seen!

> > >> >> > Here you go:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> > >> >> Marty?
> > >> >
> > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > >>
> > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > >
> > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > Self-evident.
>
> Incorrect.

On the contrary.

> > >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > >> >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > >> >
> > >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > >> >painfully
> > >> >obvious by now anyway.
> > >>
> > >> No comment.
> > >
> > >Note: no comment.
> >
> > I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
>
> Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.

Irrelevant.

> > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > >> >
> > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried
> > >> >to
> > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
> > >> >work.
> > >>
> > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > >
> > >See above.
> >
> > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> Not at all, Aaron.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
> > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > >> >
> > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > >>
> > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > >
> > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > Self-evident.
>
> Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> Balderdash
> garden.

Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka Chris
Pott).

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 10:51:15
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Excuse me, Huffy, but I have not been writing to you directly let a

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> ...fuck off.

Typical invective.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   30-Nov-99 10:55:00
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <7tn04.5811$[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]> wrote:


> Aaron Dimsdale
> Yes, the Aaron Dimsdale that
> you haven't heard from in a
> long time.

You seem to have improved your tholenbotting skills significantly since
your last appearance here.

> Is this really only the second
> Tholen Digest? I doubt it.

No, but they aren't necessarily numbered using an uninterrupted sequence
of integers.  There may not have been one given the number "2" in the
past.  Just big numbers like Dave uses when numbering his digests.

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                30-Nov-99 11:10:23
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[e-mail]>

On 30 Nov 1999 04:57:16 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:

>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> him, ...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to
get
>>>>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.
What
>>>>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic,
for
>>>>>>>>>> example.
>
>>>>>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2
system
>>>>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>>>>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>
>>>>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here
>
>>>>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".
>
>>>>>> I saw you just show up.
>
>>>>> Not "here".
>
>>>> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.
>
>>> Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
>>> cross-posted to that newsgroup either.
>
>> Do tell...
>
>Why?

Inquiring minds want to know!

>>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
>
>>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people sleep,
>>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>>>>> don't "show up", including you.
>
>>>> I never sleep; I am always here.
>
>>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
>> a year.
>
>Illogical.
>
>> You will see that the numbers are different.
>
>So what?
>
>> What other proof can there be?
>
>Something more logical.

Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
mathematics. I don't have time to explain it all so just take my word
on it.
>
>>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
>
>>>>> That's your problem.
>
>>>> And my cleaner's as well.
>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
>> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
>
>How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?

He had to clean them. I'd just had a heaping helping of chili, too.
Nasty affair, that.
>
>>>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed
up.
>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
>>>>>> Is too!
>
>>>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
>
>>>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>
>>> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
>
>> Unambiguousness is for wimps.
>
>On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?

On the basis that I'm neither unambiguous, nor a wimp.
>
>>>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one
of
>>>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>
>>>>>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.
>
>>>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>
>>>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.
>
>>>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
>>>> so restricted.
>
>>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>> All will be known come the Saturay drawing!
>
>The Saturday drawing won't change reality.

Maybe not yours, but if we hit it big my memory's reality will be
greatly changed!
>
>>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
>
>>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
>
>>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
>
>> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!
>
>The future can't change the past.

But it can buy a better present!
>
>>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>
>>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
>
>>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
>
>>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>>>>> fantasies.
>
>>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
>
>>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."
>
>> Read the line below and all will be answered.
>
>You like to contradict yourself?

Among other things I like to do to myself.
>
>>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>>>>> ones!
>
>>>>> Ambiguous.
>
>>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
>
>>> Irrelevant.
>
>> Not to the crows.
>
>The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.

How can you be so sure?
>
>>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>
>>>>>> Irrelevant!
>
>>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
>
>>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
>
>>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
>
>> Wait until Saturday.
>
>What will Saturday do?

You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)


"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."

Alan Greenspan

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: City Of R'lyeh (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           30-Nov-99 11:18:18
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81vaju$3ik$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 08:53 PM,
   "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:


> "Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:38426ce7$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > On <81s8ka$g8b$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 05:00 PM,
> >    "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:
> >
> > > I would agree that Apple didn't 'steal' the Xerox UI, but you should not
> > > accept MacKiDo's claims that Microsoft 'stole' DOS, either. In both
> > > cases the companies dealt very shrewdly and got the better end of the
> > > deal.
> >
> > Well, Seattle Computer would beg to disagree since they successfully sued
> > MS for ripping off DOS.

> Oh?

Well, they took a payment of something like $950,000 to drop the suit. MS
is not in the habit of paying when they are right.

> > Since it was in bankruptcy at the time the suit
> > was settled, it agreed to a settlement of less than a million dollars just
> > before the jury was about to award many times that amount.

> So Microsoft settled, then. Why? What was the basis of the suit?

Seattle Computer claimed that their license was only for Version 1.0 of
DOS. MS disagreed. Seattle Computer also claimed that the license gave
them the right to provide a free (to Seattle Computer) copy of DOS with
every processor they sold. When DOS got big and Seattle couldn't compete
for machines, they agreed to sell the company to a third party who
admittedly planned to sell 8088 processors and DOS at retail. MS claimed
the license wasn't transferrable and that Seattle had no rights to any
version of DOS beyond 1.0. Rulings by the court squashed that bit of
hipocricy and MS realized that if they didn't settle, they could lose DOS
to Seattle's proposed owner since by that time 8088's could be had in
quantity for less than a buck apiece.

> Every history I've read of this has Microsoft paying several tens of
> thousands of dollars for QDOS; that doesn't sound like stealing.

The payment was in the form of the settlement, spun by MS flacks to look
like a valid transaction, not one forced by suit.

> Do they lie?

Well they paid. Why they paid makes a big difference. Saying they paid is
legally factual but misleading in the words of another world class liar.

> > When  interviewed after they were dismissed, the jurors told reporters
they were
> > arguing between 100 and 70 million dollars.

> I suspect there's something you are leaving out; it sounds like Seattle
> Computer was very unwise to settle.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Nearly a million dollars to a
bankrupt person is like a pint of water to one dying of thirst.

It is not without the realm of possibility that Seattle's lawyers urged
settlement for less than altruistic reasons. In large suits, the cut of
the attorney frequently is rather limited after a certain level is
reached. For instance, here in NJ, contingency fees are limited to 40% up
to a certain level, then drop in steps to as low as 10% beyond another
level.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           30-Nov-99 11:29:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <yHQxxE9f8dqd-pn2-TGeHUK95dkkG@POBLANO>, on 11/29/99 at 06:30 PM,
   [e-mail] (Stan Goodman) said:

> > > You may consider it a farce. It is the law of the land in the United
> > > States.
> >
> > Yes.  So much for "home of the free".

> No, that is what keeps it the home of the free. Had it not been for
> anti-trust legislation, the United States would have been a fiefdom of
> the  likes of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.

Not to mention the Mellons, Vanderbilts, Cassats, etc. who controlled the
railroads.

> -------------
> Stan Goodman
> Qiryat Tiv'on
> Israel

> E-mail sent to [e-mail] will, of course, not reach me. Sorry.
> Send E-mail to: domain: hashkedim dot com, username: stan.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          30-Nov-99 16:55:01
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:05
Subj: Re: RE VT USAGES

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer
>I will cite an example from your profession to prove the point.

Everything Bob Germer alleges to know and "have done" are just things
that he has read about in some magazine or on the internet. He often
foists a lot of these "anecdotes" off as part of his own "experience"
as a person who supposedly installs and maintains thousands of
computers (a lie)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             30-Nov-99 17:30:27
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail]

In article <81n7ml$7v9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:
>
> CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
> CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so
inclined.
>
> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > You may *infer* anything you wish, Dave.  Nothing new.
>
> I'd rather not rely on inference, Curtis, which is why I asked you for
> a clarification.  I see you didn't bother.

Why should I bother?  Contrary to your claim, you do infer anything that
suits your "argument," as I have indicated. That just happens to be your
Modus Operandi, Dave.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             30-Nov-99 17:44:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 00:35:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <81n7rl$7v9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:
>
> CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
> CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so
inclined.
>
> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > Gee. Dave is now reduced to hypocritical pontification.
>
> Yet another example of your pontification.
>
> I see you never answered my question:
>
> ] Tell me, Curtis, do any of the following end with a preposition:
> ]
> ]    "sit up"
> ]
> ]    "speak up"
> ]
> ]    "your time is up"
> ]
> ]    "from third grade up"
> ]
> ]    "the score is 15 up"
> ]
> ]    "the wind is up"

The answer to your question is no, Dave.

Does that prove anything? Again, the answer is no.

"Up on the rooftop, Reinderr pause. Out jumps good ol' Santa Claus."

"Up on the attic is where we keep the fine china."

"Up until now, I just *thought* you were inept -- now I'm sure."

> Nor did you take the opportunity to reproduce a single case of an
> allegedly unadmitted error in an "adversarial exchange".

I did, Dave, but you simply ignored and deleted it, using the
"justification" you outlined above.

> I'm not surprised.  It's so much easier to pontificate.

You should know.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    30-Nov-99 20:16:26
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: WARP, James Bond and the Invisible WinCE Promotion

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

josco <[e-mail]> wrote:
: For those windows lovers who laughed at the OS/2 WARP promotion in a James
: Bond Movie. See if you can find the WinCE logo in the newest moive.

: http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a

: For the benefit of us film buffs, Microsoft hosted a preview of the
: upcoming James Bond movie, "The World Is Not Enough." The crowd of tech
: press and analysts laughed, on cue, at references to the millennium bug
: and applauded when the HP Jornada was spotted on actress Denise Richards,
: who uses the palm-sized PC to disable a nuclear warhead.

Could this be Microsoft's new slogan?

Microsoft: The World Is Not Enough.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            30-Nov-99 16:32:28
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: WARP, James Bond and the Invisible WinCE Promotion

From: josco <[e-mail]>

For those windows lovers who laughed at the OS/2 WARP promotion in a James
Bond Movie. See if you can find the WinCE logo in the newest moive.

http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a

For the benefit of us film buffs, Microsoft hosted a preview of the
upcoming James Bond movie, "The World Is Not Enough." The crowd of tech
press and analysts laughed, on cue, at references to the millennium bug
and applauded when the HP Jornada was spotted on actress Denise Richards,
who uses the palm-sized PC to disable a nuclear warhead.

"Denise," as one Microsoft product manager fondly referred to her, will
also do promotions for the struggling Windows CE operating system during
the run of the movie. But apparently Microsoft and HP didn't get what they
paid for when they split the $300,000 bill to get the product placement,
one insider said. In the movie, the audience only gets the faintest
glimpse of the PalmPilot wannabe.


-- joseph

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 19:49:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <821m58$c2i$[e-mail]>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
([e-mail]) wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> >>>>>> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
>
> >>>>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>> I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.
>
> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > See what I mean?
>
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

See what I mean?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 19:44:00
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > >> >> >>> word
> > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > > >> >> >> example of
> > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
> > > > >> >I
> > > > >> >would
> > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
> > > > >> >had
> > > > >> >not
> > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> > > > >> >Get
> > > > >> >over
> > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > >
> > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, Aaron?
> >
> > I see you didn't answer the question.
>
> Incorrect.

Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.

> > How predictable.
>
> Logic can be quite predictable.
>
> > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> Unnecessary.

Evidence, please.

> > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > >
> > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > > relevant.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Self-evident.

Incorrect.  Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
that fact.

> > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
> > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > > > >statement
> > > > >above.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Typical circular reasoning.
>
> What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?

See above.

> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> Don't you know?

I see you failed to answer the question.

> > Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
> I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise there.

Common sense makes a cameo appearance.

You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
claims, so it is only logical that I have not examined it.

> > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > >> >> question,
> > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > >
> > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > >
> > > > Self-evident.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> Typical pontification.

What is "typical" about it, Marty?

> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?

Don't you know, Marty?

> Why,
> nowhere to be seen!

I can see it.

> > > > >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > > >> >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > > >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > > > >> >painfully
> > > > >> >obvious by now anyway.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No comment.
> > > > >
> > > > >Note: no comment.
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
> > >
> > > Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect.

Comprehend context, Marty.

> > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> > > > >> >tried
> > > > >> >to
> > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > >> >didn't
> > > > >> >work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > >See above.
> > > >
> > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > >
> > > Not at all, Aaron.
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> Don't you know, tholenbot?

I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.

> > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part
> > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > >
> > > > Self-evident.
> > >
> > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> > > Balderdash
> > > garden.
> >
> > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka Chris
> > Pott).
>
> Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.

On what basis do you make this claim?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             30-Nov-99 20:47:14
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: fix pack installaton

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

Ivan Tang wrote:

>
>
> My question is: At the end of the installation, it prompts the users
> to enter ctrl-alt-del to restart the computer.

A typical day with OS/2

> After rebooting
> the PC, the fix pack installation program, fservice.exe, is still running. I
> just wonder how to make this fservice.exe to terminated by
> itself?  I have read books about the CID installation, and found
> that there is a key word "RebootRequired"

Im not suprised


        what have I done wrong?

You purchased OS/2

>
> Thanks in advance,

Thank IBM

>
>
> Victor
> email: [e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  01-Dec-99 01:59:23
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Larsen Commander 1.0

From: "Leif-Erik Larsen" <[e-mail]>

Who says there are no new software for OS/2?

Check out Larsen Commander 1.0.
It is a powerful GUI File Manager and Command Processor that
has a look and feel like the classic Norton Commander. The most notable
difference is that the Larsen Commander is pure GUI. Still it has a built
in command line and a scrollable console monitor.

Larsen Commander combines the very best of two very different worlds;
- the command line and the file management panels. Both available at the
same time, and even in parallel while commands are running in the
background!

You can download it and find more information at

   http://home.sol.no/~leilarse/lcmd/index.html



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telenor Online Public Access (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 19:48:21
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <821n5l$d0h$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:


> I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.

Irrelevant.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 19:53:06
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] wrote:

> On 30 Nov 1999 04:57:16 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
> >
> >>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>> I wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> talk to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> him, ...
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2
> >>>>>>>>>>> to get
> >>>>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> perfect.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect.
> >>>>>>>>>>  What
> >>>>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and
> >>>>>>>>>> illogic, for
> >>>>>>>>>> example.
> >
> >>>>>>>>> Hmm..
> >>>>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
> >>>>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
> >>>>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must
> >>>>>>>>> have run
> >>>>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an
> >>>>>>>>> OS/2 system
> >>>>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that
> >>>>>>>>> you are
> >>>>>>>>> going through all of this?"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself
> >>>>>>>>> started.
> >
> >>>>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here
> >
> >>>>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".
> >
> >>>>>> I saw you just show up.
> >
> >>>>> Not "here".
> >
> >>>> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.
> >
> >>> Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
> >>> cross-posted to that newsgroup either.
> >
> >> Do tell...
> >
> >Why?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!

On what basis do you make this claim?

> >>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
> >
> >>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved.  Most people
> >>>>> sleep,
> >>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when
> >>>>> people
> >>>>> don't "show up", including you.
> >
> >>>> I never sleep; I am always here.
> >
> >>> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> >> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
> >> a year.
> >
> >Illogical.
> >
> >> You will see that the numbers are different.
> >
> >So what?
> >
> >> What other proof can there be?
> >
> >Something more logical.
>
> Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
> mathematics. I don't have time to explain it all so just take my word
> on it.

Truth by proclamation, Mayor?  Ineffective.

> >>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
> >
> >>>>> That's your problem.
> >
> >>>> And my cleaner's as well.
> >
> >>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> >
> >> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
> >
> >How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?
>
> He had to clean them. I'd just had a heaping helping of chili, too.
> Nasty affair, that.

What was "nasty" about it?

> >>>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all
> >>>>>>>> warmed up.
> >
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant.
> >
> >>>>>> Is too!
> >
> >>>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
> >
> >>>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
> >
> >>> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
> >
> >> Unambiguousness is for wimps.
> >
> >On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
>
> On the basis that I'm neither unambiguous, nor a wimp.

Illogical.

> >>>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every
> >>>>>>>> one of
> >>>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
> >
> >>>>>>> Wrong again.  Your memory is rather poor.
> >
> >>>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
> >>>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
> >
> >>>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.
> >
> >>>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine
> >>>> is
> >>>> so restricted.
> >
> >>> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> >> All will be known come the Saturay drawing!
> >
> >The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
>
> Maybe not yours, but if we hit it big my memory's reality will be
> greatly changed!

I see you have tried to change your position from "will" to "if".  How
predictable that you were unable to substantiate your original claim.

> >>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
> >>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
> >
> >>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
> >
> >>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
> >
> >> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!
> >
> >The future can't change the past.
>
> But it can buy a better present!

Irrelevant.

> >>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
> >
> >>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
> >
> >>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
> >
> >>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of
> >>>>> your
> >>>>> fantasies.
> >
> >>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
> >
> >>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."
> >
> >> Read the line below and all will be answered.
> >
> >You like to contradict yourself?
>
> Among other things I like to do to myself.

Illogical.

> >>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really
> >>>>>> good
> >>>>>> ones!
> >
> >>>>> Ambiguous.
> >
> >>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant.
> >
> >> Not to the crows.
> >
> >The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.
>
> How can you be so sure?

Don't you know?

> >>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
> >
> >>>>>> Irrelevant!
> >
> >>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
> >
> >>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
> >
> >>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
> >
> >> Wait until Saturday.
> >
> >What will Saturday do?
>
> You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)

Posting for entertainment purposes, Mayor?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             30-Nov-99 20:56:24
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:

>
> OS/2 is not for the common man or woman. It is for professionals in
> business who provide the income to allow the brain-dead to buy games,
> movies, etc. to use on their computers which would otherwise be gathering
> dust since Windows users are incapable of actually operating a computer.

Germer, what have you been smoking ? Have you eaten today ?? The "common man",
you must be
joking, or perhaps, you really are as fucking stupid as you sound.  I dont
even use windows and
know that 90+ % of desktop PC users are windows users. Knowing this, even the
simplest of persons
could conclude that it is unlikely that this segment of the computing
population is "brain-dead".

I suggest you request that your physician do an ekg to determine the status of
your brain. It is
likely that it is yours that has ceased, (or never has been) functioning
properly.



>
>
> --
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 19:55:14
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: I wish Kooks would use OS/2... [wait, they do!]

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <821m3r$c2i$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> him, ...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to get
> >>>>>>>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perfect.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is
> >>>>>>>>>>> perfect.  What
> >>>>>>>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> illogic, for
> >>>>>>>>>>> example.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hmm..
> >>>>>>>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
> >>>>>>>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
> >>>>>>>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must
> >>>>>>>>>> have run
> >>>>>>>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an
> >>>>>>>>>> OS/2 system
> >>>>>>>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that
> >>>>>>>>>> you are
> >>>>>>>>>> going through all of this?"
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself
> >>>>>>>>>> started.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Since Tholen has shown up here
>
> >>>>>>>> I've been "here" for years.  I did not just "show up".
>
> >>>>>>> I saw you just show up.
>
> >>>>>> Not "here".
>
> >>>>> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.
>
> >>>> Not to me.  However, this is not the first time I've had articles
> >>>> cross-posted to that newsgroup either.
>
> >>> Do tell...
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> They already know that this is not the first time I've had articles
> cross-posted to that newsgroup.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> > Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
> > mathematics.
>
> Should I be?

Aren't you certain?

> > I don't have time to explain it all
>
> Yet you have time to respond.

Irrelevant.

> > so just take my word on it.
>
> I'd rather not.

What you would rather do is not relevant.

> Crows can't read.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> >>>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant!
>
> >>>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
>
> >>>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
>
> >>>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
>
> >>> Wait until Saturday.
>
> >> What will Saturday do?
>
> > You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)
>
> I doubt it.
>

Aren't you certain, Dave?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            30-Nov-99 17:11:17
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On 30 Nov 1999, Holger Veit wrote:

> On 30 Nov 1999 14:06:26 GMT, Glen D <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >The fact is that HPFS386 *can* have a cache larger than 2MB.  I don't
> >know much about IFS internals so I can't explain how.
>
> It is not a matter of the IFS specification but of the way the cache
> is implemented in the actual IFS driver. The cache is NO RESTRICTION
> of the kernel! AFAIK, the 2MB limit relates to the way a cache element
> is described, namely by a 16 bit index, allowing 65K of such cache elements.
> This results in a maximum of 2MB of cache area.

You are right (in agreement with the article) about the source of the 2MB
limitation.

I don't know if you have the Feb 1996 article from OS/2 Magazine on the
HPFS.  That's been my source for understanding the HPFS.  In the article
there is reference to a program that seems to implement a cache for the
most recent HPFS386.  Still the IFS imposes a 2MB limit.

Over the years I've enjoyed the HPFS.  I don't have a strong feeling about
the cache limitation.  I know Windows and FreeBSD have an adaptive cache
that grows and shrinks based on RAM usage.  OS/2 does not however my
understanding of the day to day use of a desktop is that a 2MB cache is
sufficient for the kinds of things I do in StarOffice and in a browser.
Caches shine on benchmarks and instances when the data fit into the cache.
IMHO I have always wanted the RAM for my OS and applications.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             30-Nov-99 21:04:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Christopher J Houle <[e-mail]>

>  -------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

By the way Bobbie, nobody gives a damn what your running. Smarten up, there's
no prize to be won
for running any one OS over another. If you were here I'd bitchslap you just
for including
something like this as a signature.

Maybe you should write to IBM, they may have a reward for the biggest suckass.
Or, perhaps you
could get a job boot polishing for some of the upper management ?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 21:18:11
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: fix pack installaton

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Wow!  A real live Linux troll!  Now with the popularity and ease of use of
RedHat Linux, morons such as this person can even get it to run on their
system
and get connected to the internet.  Linux has come a long way.

Christopher J Houle wrote:
>
> Ivan Tang wrote:
> >
> > My question is: At the end of the installation, it prompts the users
> > to enter ctrl-alt-del to restart the computer.
>
> A typical day with OS/2
>
> > After rebooting
> > the PC, the fix pack installation program, fservice.exe, is still running.
I
> > just wonder how to make this fservice.exe to terminated by
> > itself?  I have read books about the CID installation, and found
> > that there is a key word "RebootRequired"
>
> Im not suprised
>
>         what have I done wrong?
>
> You purchased OS/2
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> Thank IBM
>
> > Victor
> > email: [e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 20:56:26
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > >> >> >>> word
> > > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > > > >> >> >> example of
> > > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
> > > > > >> >I
> > > > > >> >would
> > > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
> > > > > >> >had
> > > > > >> >not
> > > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> > > > > >> >Get
> > > > > >> >over
> > > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know, Aaron?
> > >
> > > I see you didn't answer the question.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.

How ironic, coming from the person who said:
EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

> > > How predictable.
> >
> > Logic can be quite predictable.

Note: no response

> > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Evidence, please.
> >
> > Unnecessary.
>
> Evidence, please.

The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.

> > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > > >
> > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > > > relevant.
> > >
> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > Self-evident.
>
> Incorrect.

Typical pontification.

> Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> that fact.

How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to recognize
the self-evident nature of:
"What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is relevant."

> > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
> > > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > > > > >statement
> > > > > >above.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > Typical circular reasoning.
> >
> > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
>
> See above.

There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.

> > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >
> > Don't you know?
>
> I see you failed to answer the question.

How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.

> > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >
> > I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise there.
>
> Common sense makes a cameo appearance.

What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?

> You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
> claims,

I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.

> so it is only logical that I have not examined it.

Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.

> > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > >> >> question,
> > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Self-evident.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > On the contrary.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> What is "typical" about it, Marty?

Don't you know, tholenbot?

> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> Don't you know, Marty?

It is impossible to know the location of something which does not exist.

> > Why,
> > nowhere to be seen!
>
> I can see it.

Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had previously
obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.

> Comprehend context, Marty.

Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.

> > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> > > > > >> >tried
> > > > > >> >to
> > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > >> >didn't
> > > > > >> >work.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> > Don't you know, tholenbot?
>
> I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.

How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't "answer the
question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post you've failed
to "answer the question."

> > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part
> > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Self-evident.
> > > >
> > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> > > > Balderdash
> > > > garden.
> > >
> > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka Chris
> > > Pott).
> >
> > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                30-Nov-99 21:41:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451513

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <821lpp$c2i$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> >> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he
> >> continued
> >> his "infantile game" on me as well.
>
> > How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
>

Ask your mentor, grasshopper.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 21:08:02
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Note Eric's additional irrelevant cross-posting.

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.
>
> Illogical, as there is no such cross-posting to note.

That is a lie.

> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Marty writes:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > > >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > > > >> >> example
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > > >> > blatant.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Illogically,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
> > > > > >would
> > > > > >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had
> > > > > >not
> > > > > >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> > > > > >Get
> > > > > >over
> > > > > >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical invective, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > >
> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > Self-evident.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

Unnecessary, tholenbot.

> > > > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> > > > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > >> > inappropriate
> > > > > >> > question?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > > >facilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> > > > statement
> > > > above.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> > Don't you know, Eric?
>
> I see that,

You see what?  The smudge of dirt on your glasses?

> having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the burden of
> proof.

You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.

> Ineffective.

You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.

> > > > > >> > Here you go:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > >> question,
> > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Balderdash, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
> >
> > If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he thinks,
> > what
> > other choice do I have?
>
> Don't you know?

I see that, having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the
burden of proof.  Ineffective.  I also see that you have failed to answer the
question.  How hypocritical, considering you said:
EB] I see you didn't answer the question.
EB] I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.

> > > > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > > > > >painfully
> > > > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > No comment.
> > > >
> > > > Note: no comment.
> > >
> > > Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile little
> > games".
>
> What allegedly "infantile" game do I allegedly "enjoy"?

It's your infantile game, Eric.  Don't you know?

> > > > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > >> > embarassment.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
> > > > > >work.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > Typical circular reasoning.
> >
> > What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?
>
> Taking reading comprehension lessons from Aaron Dimsdale again, Marty?

You are erroneously presupposing that Aaron Dimsdale is qualified to teach me
about reading comprehension, tholenbot.

> > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >
> > Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?

Note:  no response

> > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Your stroll down irrelevancy lane is predictable, Marty.

You are erroneously presupposing that I have strolled down "irrelevancy lane",
Eric.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   30-Nov-99 21:51:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Note Eric's additional irrelevant cross-posting.
>
> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.
> >
> > Illogical, as there is no such cross-posting to note.
>
> That is a lie.

Typical invective.

> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > >> >>> word
> > > > > > >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > > > > >> >> example
> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > > > >> > blatant.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Illogically,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >would
> > > > > > >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
> > > > > > >had
> > > > > > >not
> > > > > > >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> > > > > > >Get
> > > > > > >over
> > > > > > >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > Self-evident.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary, tholenbot.

Incorrect.

> > > > > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > >> >> lie/game on
> > > > > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > > >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > >> > question?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > > > >facilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in
> > > > > the
> > > > > statement
> > > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, Eric?
> >
> > I see that,
>
> You see what?

The context that you removed, among other things.  Taking context
removal lessons from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol again, Marty?

> The smudge of dirt on your glasses?

What alleged "glasses", Marty?

> > having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the burden of
> > proof.
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.

Incorrect.

> > Ineffective.
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.

Incorrect.

> > > > > > >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > > >> question,
> > > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > >
> > > > What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
> > >
> > > If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he
> > > thinks,
> > > what
> > > other choice do I have?
> >
> > Don't you know?
>
> I see that, having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the
> burden of proof.

Illogical, given that I have demonstrated a basis for my claim.

> Ineffective.  I also see that you have failed to answer
> the
> question.  How hypocritical, considering you said:
> EB] I see you didn't answer the question.
> EB] I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.

I have answered the question, Marty, therefore there is no hypocrisy.
You simply failed to locate the answer.

> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > > > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > > > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > > > > > >painfully
> > > > > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: no comment.
> > > >
> > > > Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile little
> > > games".
> >
> > What allegedly "infantile" game do I allegedly "enjoy"?
>
> It's your infantile game, Eric.  Don't you know?

Illogical.

> > > > > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> > > > > > >tried
> > > > > > >to
> > > > > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > > >didn't
> > > > > > >work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > >
> > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > >
> > > What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?
> >
> > Taking reading comprehension lessons from Aaron Dimsdale again, Marty?
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that Aaron Dimsdale is qualified to
> teach me
> about reading comprehension, tholenbot.

Incorrect.  Aaron is not qualified, but that does not mean you are not
taking lessons from him.

> > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > >
> > > Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?
>
> Note:  no response
>
> > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Your stroll down irrelevancy lane is predictable, Marty.
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I have strolled down "irrelevancy
> lane",
> Eric.

See what I mean?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   30-Nov-99 21:53:06
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: You've asked for this.  :-)

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, bastard advocate irritant
in general <[e-mail]> wrote:

> No, we just don't give a damn about Linux users which is why we mostly
> avoid the windows.advocacy groups.

Illogical.

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   30-Nov-99 21:47:23
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > >> >> >>> word
> > > > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an
> > > > > > >> >> >> alleged
> > > > > > >> >> >> example of
> > > > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > >> >> > word
> > > > > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word
> > > > > > >> >"blatant".
> > > > > > >> >I
> > > > > > >> >would
> > > > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if
> > > > > > >> >Mike
> > > > > > >> >had
> > > > > > >> >not
> > > > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct
> > > > > > >> >spelling.
> > > > > > >> >Get
> > > > > > >> >over
> > > > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know, Aaron?
> > > >
> > > > I see you didn't answer the question.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who said:
> EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

How typical that you would take my remarks out of context in an
ineffective attempt to bolster your erroneous claims.

> > > > How predictable.
> > >
> > > Logic can be quite predictable.
>
> Note: no response

Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.  Of course, that
is to be expected of you.

> > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > > > >
> > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Evidence, please.
> > >
> > > Unnecessary.
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.

Incorrect.

> > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove
> > > > > is
> > > > > relevant.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > Self-evident.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Typical pontification.

See what I mean?

> > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> > that fact.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to
> recognize
> the self-evident nature of:
> "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> relevant."

Non sequitur.

> > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
> > > > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > >statement
> > > > > > >above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > >
> > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > >
> > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> >
> > See above.
>
> There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.

Incorrect.  Of course, it takes decent evidence comprehension skills to
recognize that fact.

> > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > >
> > > Don't you know?
> >
> > I see you failed to answer the question.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.

How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.

> > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > >
> > > I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise there.
> >
> > Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
> What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?
>
> > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
> > claims,
>
> I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.

Another erroneous claim.

> > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
>
> Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.

How ironic, coming from someone who attempts to substitute many
illogical things for a logical argument.

> > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > > >> >> question,
> > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary.
> > >
> > > Typical pontification.
> >
> > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
>
> Don't you know, tholenbot?

Don't you know whether I know, Marty?

> > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >
> > Don't you know, Marty?
>
> It is impossible to know the location of something which does not exist.

Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.

> > > Why,
> > > nowhere to be seen!
> >
> > I can see it.
>
> Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
> previously
> obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.

Illogical, given that I would not have been able to see it had it been
obfuscated, and given that I was not wearing glasses.

> > Comprehend context, Marty.
>
> Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.

Illogical.  I see you have snipped the context in a vain attempt to
obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.

> > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> > > > > > >> >tried
> > > > > > >> >to
> > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > > >> >didn't
> > > > > > >> >work.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> >
> > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
>
> How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't "answer
> the
> question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post you've
> failed
> to "answer the question."

"!!"?  How rich!

> > > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my
> > > > > > >> >> part
> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > >
> > > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> > > > > Balderdash
> > > > > garden.
> > > >
> > > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka
> > > > Chris
> > > > Pott).
> > >
> > > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.

Why do you say that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   30-Nov-99 21:51:23
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> tholenbot wrote:
> >
> > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>
> How ironic

On what basis do you make this claim?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 22:34:22
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote (posting under a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > tholenbot wrote:
> > >
> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> >
> > How ironic
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course for
tholenbot.  Here's your context back:

> tholenbot wrote:
> >
> > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>
> How ironic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 22:53:21
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> word
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an
> > > > > > > >> >> >> alleged
> > > > > > > >> >> >> example of
> > > > > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > > >> >> > word
> > > > > > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word
> > > > > > > >> >"blatant".
> > > > > > > >> >I
> > > > > > > >> >would
> > > > > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if
> > > > > > > >> >Mike
> > > > > > > >> >had
> > > > > > > >> >not
> > > > > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct
> > > > > > > >> >spelling.
> > > > > > > >> >Get
> > > > > > > >> >over
> > > > > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't you know, Aaron?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you didn't answer the question.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from the person who said:
> > EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>
> How typical that you would take my remarks out of context in an
> ineffective attempt to bolster your erroneous claims.

How ironic, coming from the person who took my remarks out of context in an
ineffective attempt to bolster his erroneous claims as evidenced by:
EB] M] EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
(note the dishonest removal of the second "EB] M] EB] Argument by repetition,
Aaron?  Ineffective.")
EB] M] How ironic

> > > > > How predictable.
> > > >
> > > > Logic can be quite predictable.
> >
> > Note: no response
>
> Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.

I failed to locate the response because you failed to post it.  That's your
problem, not mine.

> Of course, that is to be expected of you.

Logic is to be expected of me.

> > > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > >
> > > > Unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Evidence, please.
> >
> > The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.
>
> Incorrect.

Your inability to grasp this concept is of no surprise.

> > > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > >
> > > > Self-evident.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> See what I mean?

See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.

> > > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> > > that fact.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to
> > recognize
> > the self-evident nature of:
> > "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > relevant."
>
> Non sequitur.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> > > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
> > > > > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in
> > > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > >statement
> > > > > > > >above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
>
> Incorrect.

Balderdash, tholenbot.

> Of course, it takes decent evidence

But no "decent evidence" was provided, tholenbot.

> comprehension skills to recognize that fact.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "decent evidence".

> > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.

I see you still haven't answered the question.  No surprise there.

> > > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > > >
> > > > I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise there.
> > >
> > > Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> >
> > What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?

Note:  no response

> > > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
> > > claims,
> >
> > I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.
>
> Another erroneous claim.

Another pontification.

> > > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
> >
> > Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
>
> How ironic,

On what basis do you make this claim?

> coming from someone who attempts to substitute many illogical things for a
> logical argument.

You are erroneously presupposing that I attempt to substitute many illogical
things for a logical argument.

> > > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > > > >> >> question,
> > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the contrary.
> > > >
> > > > Typical pontification.
> > >
> > > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
> >
> > Don't you know, tholenbot?
>
> Don't you know whether I know, Marty?

It's your pontification.  You should know.

> > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, Marty?
> >
> > It is impossible to know the location of something which does not exist.
>
> Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.

Non sequitur, given that said logical argument was not posted by you to this
thread.

> > > > Why,
> > > > nowhere to be seen!
> > >
> > > I can see it.
> >
> > Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
> > previously
> > obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.
>
> Illogical,

Incorrect.

> given that I would not have been able to see it had it been obfuscated,

Reading comprehension problems?  The smudge of dirt was the cause of the
obfuscation.  Hence all you could see was said smudge.

> and given that I was not wearing glasses.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> > > Comprehend context, Marty.
> >
> > Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.
>
> Illogical.

Balderdash, tholenbot.

> I see you have snipped the context

You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such context to be
"snipped".

> in a vain attempt

You are erroneously presupposing the existence of "an attempt".

> to obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.

What alleged "assertion"?

> > > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> > > > > > > >> >tried
> > > > > > > >> >to
> > > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > > > >> >didn't
> > > > > > > >> >work.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >See above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> > > > >
> > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> > >
> > > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> >
> > How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't "answer
> > the
> > question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post you've
> > failed
> > to "answer the question."
>
> "!!"?  How rich!

No logical argument, eh?  No surprise there.

> > > > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my
> > > > > > > >> >> part
> > > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> > > > > > Balderdash
> > > > > > garden.
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka
> > > > > Chris
> > > > > Pott).
> > > >
> > > > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> > On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.
>
> Why do you say that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden?

I've pointed out all the relevant evidence in another thread, tholenbot.
Still
having reading comprehension problems?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  30-Nov-99 22:47:17
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451513.452435326556^-100000

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Dumbo tholened:

> >> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he
continued
> >> his "infantile game" on me as well.
>
> > How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?

See the evidence in all of you other postings, Tholen.  They're almost all
infantile and must be games, for there's no other reason for them.  Hence,
"infantile games".


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 23:09:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: You've asked for this.  :-)

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, bastard advocate irritant
> in general <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > No, we just don't give a damn about Linux users which is why we mostly
> > avoid the windows.advocacy groups.
>
> Illogical.

Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 23:08:04
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Note Eric's additional irrelevant cross-posting.

Note: no response

> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.
> > >
> > > Illogical, as there is no such cross-posting to note.
> >
> > That is a lie.
>
> Typical invective.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > > >> >>> word blatant.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> > > > > > > >> >> example of a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> > > > > > > >> > blatant.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Illogically,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
> > > > > > > >I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> > > > > > > >if Mike had not corrected me.  I thanked him after using the
> > > > > > > >correct spelling.  Get over it, moron.  A two-year-old could
> > > > > > > >grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > >
> > > > Self-evident.
> > >
> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > Unnecessary, tholenbot.
>
> Incorrect.

Typical pontification.

> > > > > > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > >> >> lie/game on
> > > > > > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > > > >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > >> > question?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> > > > > > > >facilities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in
> > > > > > the statement above.
> > > > >
> > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know, Eric?
> > >
> > > I see that,
> >
> > You see what?
>
> The context that you removed, among other things.

I can't see what hasn't happened, tholenbot, not even with dirty glasses.

> Taking context removal lessons from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol again,
> Marty?

You are erroneously presupposing that Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol is
qualified to teach me about "context removal".

> > The smudge of dirt on your glasses?
>
> What alleged "glasses", Marty?

Don't you know, tholenbot?

> > > having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the burden of
> > > proof.
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.
>
> Incorrect.

Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.  Taking
pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

> > > Ineffective.
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.
>
> Incorrect.

Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.  Taking
pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

> > > > > > > >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > > > >> question,
> > > > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he
> > > > thinks,
> > > > what
> > > > other choice do I have?
> > >
> > > Don't you know?
> >
> > I see that, having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the
> > burden of proof.
>
> Illogical, given that I have demonstrated a basis for my claim.

To whom, tholenbot?  You?

> > Ineffective.  I also see that you have failed to answer
> > the question.  How hypocritical, considering you said:
> > EB] I see you didn't answer the question.
> > EB] I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
>
> I have answered the question, Marty,

Incorrect.

> therefore there is no hypocrisy.

Not on my part anyway, but you should be concerned about yourself.

> You simply failed to locate the answer.

I cannot locate what doesn't exist, tholenbot.

> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> > > > > > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > > > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> > > > > > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> > > > > > > >painfully
> > > > > > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note: no comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile little
> > > > games".
> > >
> > > What allegedly "infantile" game do I allegedly "enjoy"?
> >
> > It's your infantile game, Eric.  Don't you know?
>
> Illogical.

What's allegedy "illogical" about it, tholenbot?

> > > > > > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> > > > > > > >tried
> > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > > > >didn't
> > > > > > > >work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > >
> > > > What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?
> > >
> > > Taking reading comprehension lessons from Aaron Dimsdale again, Marty?
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that Aaron Dimsdale is qualified to
> > teach me about reading comprehension, tholenbot.
>
> Incorrect.

Balderdash, tholenbot.

> Aaron is not qualified, but that does not mean you are not
> taking lessons from him.

Illogical.

> > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > >
> > > > Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?
> >
> > Note:  no response

Note:  still no response

> > > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > Your stroll down irrelevancy lane is predictable, Marty.
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that I have strolled down "irrelevancy
> > lane", Eric.
>
> See what I mean?

No tholenbot, I cannot see the piece of dirt on your glasses obfuscating your
vision.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            30-Nov-99 23:55:22
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>: In article <[e-mail]>,
>: [e-mail] says...
>:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
>:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
>:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
>:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
>:>
>:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
>:>version.
>:>
>
>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
>
>How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
>besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
>developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
>is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
>is still coming along nicely.
>
>I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.
>
>-Jason
>

You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project Magic
started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
of the OS/2 version.

You guys have amazing revisionist abilities.

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 01-Dec-99 04:46:17
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:06
Subj: Re: Okay, here is an interesting POV re: Microsoft and lawsuits

From: [e-mail] (David LaRue)

  Hello Kelly,

In <[e-mail]>, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>
writes:
<snip>
>Now if programmers weren't terrorized by Microsoft or allowed to write
>for non-Windows platforms of their own free will instead of MS coercing
>them to write for Windows only, do I get a big chunk of money from MS
>because they controlled the programmers who write the applications which
>make computers useful in the first place and therefore compelled me to
>go Wintel or otherwise sit in a desert?
<snip>

  I have an alternate, though related view of what happened.  There was a
time when users had options.  Commonality can be good, but too much makes
for a bad interface.  Thats why an F14 doesn't use the controls of an
automobile.

  Somewhere along the way the control shifted from "what do I need" to
"(someone) says I have to use this".  There was a time when people used
whatever was available, and hopefully best, for the job.  People gradually
gave up or had their options removed from them.  Try asking for any OS
other than MS today and you're boss won't buy it (even if HW/SW the same),
Network Admins will give you grief becuase they need to know something,
someone will complain about your being different, and too many other
excuses.

  Now, this makes sense for say doing company word processing.  Standards
can be good for that.  But what if the standard doesn't fit?  Do mega book
publishers use W98 and MW Word for everything?  I recall a few products
MS bought and buried that were better.  I'm a Software Engineer.  The
customer, sales manager, or all the forces in nature now dictate that I must
use the almighty MS OS (all flavors, please) for whatever I do regardless of
its suitability for the task.  Excuse me, as an engineer, am I not responsible
for some of these decisions.  W95 has never been suited for running, let
alone administering, (pick your favorite example).  Why should my automobile
need to run MS WinCE or whatever?  Doesn't the FAA have some say about
reliability goals for air traffic control.  No, we got a good price.  Where
will
you be at midnight at the end of December?

  There are always options.  John Q. Public has always grown up and passed
a legacy to the next generation.  Somewhere along the line, the MS hype
about what we really need, and who invented it, went greatly in their favor.
That will be one of the last couple generation's legacies.  So long as the
market continues to thrive for cheap products, quick fixes, and this weeks
new product, we'll be customers of Mr. Gates.  That isn't bad or good.
Ask IBM about OS/2, Berkely and AT&T about Unix, ... there isn't much money
in well designed products that don't require updates.  A modern web server
for just about any Unix will probably run on a 25 year old copy of Unix out
of its dusty box.  After all, the system is still running in the basement
somewhere.  Why do I need to have it as part of this years OS?  Why can't
I install the OS with out it?  It makes the little hidden applications like
VCRs, the preverbial toaster, light switches, and so one slower, more
complicated, and more expensive than they need to be.

  Does my opinion count?  It doesn't really matter.  We each have decisions
to make.  My needs are my own and rarely are in line with Microsoft's.  That
being said, my world shrinks as it is encompassed by all the new toys
brought into the world.  My world didn't shrink.  You found a customer base.
They like this years car with 4% more power, a new design, and a body that
will rust just as fast as the old one.  We'll even give you lessons if you
can't use it or just want to try out some new gadgets.

  Have fun all,

  David

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 00:34:00
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
:>: In article <[e-mail]>,
:>: [e-mail] says...
:>:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
:>:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
:>:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
:>:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
:>:>
:>:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
:>:>version.
:>:>
:>
:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
:>
:>How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
:>besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
:>developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
:>is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
:>is still coming along nicely.
:>
:>I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.
:>

: You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project Magic
: started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
: of the OS/2 version.

: You guys have amazing revisionist abilities.

And you have a not so amazing ability to duck the question.  Of course,
when you are flat out wrong, what else can you do?  Can you show me how
the OS/2 version had a 2 year head start an any other platform for opera???

No you can't, in fact the OS/2 version got scrapped once because of the
developement team, and got restarted in 1999.  Your comments make even
less sense when you consider they were talking about the version 4
browser.  How could OS/2 have a two year head start on Windows for the
version 4 browser when it's a port???  They weren't even working on
version 4 two years ago!!!

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     30-Nov-99 21:30:22
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >: In article <[e-mail]>,
> >: [e-mail] says...
> >:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
> >:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
> >:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
> >:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
> >:>
> >:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
> >:>version.
> >:>
> >
> >: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
> >
> >How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
> >besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
> >developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
> >is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
> >is still coming along nicely.
> >
> >I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.
> >
> >-Jason
> >
>
> You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project Magic
> started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
> of the OS/2 version.
>
> You guys have amazing revisionist abilities.

The OS/2 team who began in 1999 without any legacy code or technology is
current at
50% completion.  The progress of the development team is attributed to the
development team.

Project Magic is Opera's project to hire outside contractors to develop
non-Windows
ports.  That Opera project began long ago.  Too bad Opera didn't pick the
right
team.   Opera's progress on hiring teams to do ports is a separate issue.
Think
about all the deadbeat windows projects killed over the years and ask
yourself,
"Why am I, David McCoy, not bitching and criticizing windows being there are
many
failed teams who started windows development and could not finish or make
progress?"

Loser thy name is McCoy.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     30-Nov-99 21:42:00
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: WARP, James Bond and the Invisible WinCE Promotion

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

Very, very clever.

Jason wrote:

> josco <[e-mail]> wrote:
> : http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a
>
> : For the benefit of us film buffs, Microsoft hosted a preview of the
> : upcoming James Bond movie, "The World Is Not Enough."
> Could this be Microsoft's new slogan?
>
> Microsoft: The World Is Not Enough.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 00:42:03
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Note Eric's additional irrelevant cross-posting.
>
> Note: no response

Typical Timbol-esque deletion.  How predictable.

> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.
> > > >
> > > > Illogical, as there is no such cross-posting to note.
> > >
> > > That is a lie.
> >
> > Typical invective.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Marty?

> > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of
> > > > > > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> >>> word blatant.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an
> > > > > > > > >> >> alleged
> > > > > > > > >> >> example of a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > > > >> > word
> > > > > > > > >> > blatant.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Illogically,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word
> > > > > > > > >"blatant".
> > > > > > > > >I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the
> > > > > > > > >past)
> > > > > > > > >if Mike had not corrected me.  I thanked him after using
> > > > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > >correct spelling.  Get over it, moron.  A two-year-old
> > > > > > > > >could
> > > > > > > > >grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Self-evident.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >
> > > Unnecessary, tholenbot.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Typical pontification.

See what I mean?

> > > > > > > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > > >> >> lie/game on
> > > > > > > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > > > > >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > > >> > question?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >The one which led me to question your reading
> > > > > > > > >comprehension
> > > > > > > > >facilities.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the statement above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know, Eric?
> > > >
> > > > I see that,
> > >
> > > You see what?
> >
> > The context that you removed, among other things.
>
> I can't see what hasn't happened, tholenbot, not even with dirty glasses.

Non sequitur.

> > Taking context removal lessons from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol
> > again,
> > Marty?
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol is
> qualified to teach me about "context removal".

Incorrect.

> > > The smudge of dirt on your glasses?
> >
> > What alleged "glasses", Marty?
>
> Don't you know, tholenbot?

No.

> > > > having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the
> > > > burden of
> > > > proof.
> > >
> > > You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Then why make such a statement?

Because you have demonstrated no basis for your claim.  Of course, it
takes decent reading comprehension skills to recognize that fact.

> Note the lack of explanation.

What alleged "lack"?

> Taking
> pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

What alleged "Tholen"?

> > > > Ineffective.
> > >
> > > You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.  Taking
> pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

Taking argument by repetition lessons from Eric "Master of Repetition"
Bennett again, Marty?  How ironic.

> > > > > > > > >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > > > > >> question,
> > > > > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he
> > > > > thinks,
> > > > > what
> > > > > other choice do I have?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > I see that, having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect
> > > the
> > > burden of proof.
> >
> > Illogical, given that I have demonstrated a basis for my claim.
>
> To whom, tholenbot?  You?

More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.

> > > Ineffective.  I also see that you have failed to answer
> > > the question.  How hypocritical, considering you said:
> > > EB] I see you didn't answer the question.
> > > EB] I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> >
> > I have answered the question, Marty,
>
> Incorrect.

On the contrary, quite correct.

> > therefore there is no hypocrisy.
>
> Not on my part anyway, but you should be concerned about yourself.

Illogical.

> > You simply failed to locate the answer.
>
> I cannot locate what doesn't exist, tholenbot.

Irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an
> > > > > > > > >> >>>> alleged
> > > > > > > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > > > > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.
> > > > > > > > >Hence my
> > > > > > > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.
> > > > > > > > >It's
> > > > > > > > >painfully
> > > > > > > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note: no comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile
> > > > > little
> > > > > games".
> > > >
> > > > What allegedly "infantile" game do I allegedly "enjoy"?
> > >
> > > It's your infantile game, Eric.  Don't you know?
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> What's allegedy "illogical" about it, tholenbot?

I have no infantile game.

> > > > > > > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > > >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must
> > > > > > > > >have
> > > > > > > > >tried
> > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > > > > >didn't
> > > > > > > > >work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?
> > > >
> > > > Taking reading comprehension lessons from Aaron Dimsdale again,
> > > > Marty?
> > >
> > > You are erroneously presupposing that Aaron Dimsdale is qualified to
> > > teach me about reading comprehension, tholenbot.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.

Poppycock.

> > Aaron is not qualified, but that does not mean you are not
> > taking lessons from him.
>
> Illogical.

Balderdash.

> > > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?

Note: no logical response.

> > > > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > Your stroll down irrelevancy lane is predictable, Marty.
> > >
> > > You are erroneously presupposing that I have strolled down
> > > "irrelevancy
> > > lane", Eric.
> >
> > See what I mean?

Note: no logical response.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     30-Nov-99 21:38:04
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Christopher J Houle wrote:

> >  -------------------------------
> > Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> > Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> > MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> > Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
>
> By the way Bobbie, nobody gives a damn what your running. Smarten up,
there's no prize to be won
> for running any one OS over another. If you were here I'd bitchslap you just
for including
> something like this as a signature.

To what does "bitchslap" refer?

> Maybe you should write to IBM, they may have a reward for the biggest
suckass. Or, perhaps you
> could get a job boot polishing for some of the upper management ?

"Suckass" "bitchslap"

How about "stupid"?  As in if you don't give a damn about operating systems
then stop posting and
reading to an advocacy group for operating systems. -- stupid.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   01-Dec-99 00:46:21
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> word
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> alleged
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> example of
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > word
> > > > > > > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word
> > > > > > > > >> >"blatant".
> > > > > > > > >> >I
> > > > > > > > >> >would
> > > > > > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> > > > > > > > >> >if
> > > > > > > > >> >Mike
> > > > > > > > >> >had
> > > > > > > > >> >not
> > > > > > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct
> > > > > > > > >> >spelling.
> > > > > > > > >> >Get
> > > > > > > > >> >over
> > > > > > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by
> > > > > > > > >> >now.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't you know, Aaron?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see you didn't answer the question.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from the person who said:
> > > EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > > EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> >
> > How typical that you would take my remarks out of context in an
> > ineffective attempt to bolster your erroneous claims.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who took my remarks out of context in
> an
> ineffective attempt to bolster his erroneous claims as evidenced by:
> EB] M] EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> (note the dishonest removal of the second "EB] M] EB] Argument by
> repetition,
> Aaron?  Ineffective.")
> EB] M] How ironic
>
> > > > > > How predictable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Logic can be quite predictable.
> > >
> > > Note: no response
> >
> > Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.
>
> I failed to locate the response because you failed to post it.  That's
> your
> problem, not mine.
>
> > Of course, that is to be expected of you.
>
> Logic is to be expected of me.
>
> > > > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnecessary.
> > > >
> > > > Evidence, please.
> > >
> > > The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Your inability to grasp this concept is of no surprise.
>
> > > > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can
> > > > > > > prove
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > relevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Self-evident.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > Typical pontification.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.
>
> > > > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> > > > that fact.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to
> > > recognize
> > > the self-evident nature of:
> > > "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > > relevant."
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your
> > > > > > > > >> >> > idiotically
> > > > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading
> > > > > > > > >> >comprehension
> > > > > > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension
> > > > > > > > >problems in
> > > > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > >statement
> > > > > > > > >above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.
>
> > Of course, it takes decent evidence
>
> But no "decent evidence" was provided, tholenbot.
>
> > comprehension skills to recognize that fact.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "decent evidence".
>
> > > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know?
> > > >
> > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
>
> I see you still haven't answered the question.  No surprise there.
>
> > > > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise
> > > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> > >
> > > What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?
>
> Note:  no response
>
> > > > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
> > > > claims,
> > >
> > > I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.
> >
> > Another erroneous claim.
>
> Another pontification.
>
> > > > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
> > >
> > > Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
> >
> > How ironic,
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> > coming from someone who attempts to substitute many illogical things
> > for a
> > logical argument.
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I attempt to substitute many
> illogical
> things for a logical argument.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about
> > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> question,
> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical pontification.
> > > >
> > > > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> >
> > Don't you know whether I know, Marty?
>
> It's your pontification.  You should know.
>
> > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know, Marty?
> > >
> > > It is impossible to know the location of something which does not
> > > exist.
> >
> > Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.
>
> Non sequitur, given that said logical argument was not posted by you to
> this
> thread.
>
> > > > > Why,
> > > > > nowhere to be seen!
> > > >
> > > > I can see it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
> > > previously
> > > obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.
> >
> > Illogical,
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > given that I would not have been able to see it had it been obfuscated,
>
> Reading comprehension problems?  The smudge of dirt was the cause of the
> obfuscation.  Hence all you could see was said smudge.
>
> > and given that I was not wearing glasses.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > > > Comprehend context, Marty.
> > >
> > > Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.
>
> > I see you have snipped the context
>
> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such context to be
> "snipped".
>
> > in a vain attempt
>
> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of "an attempt".
>
> > to obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.
>
> What alleged "assertion"?
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must
> > > > > > > > >> >have
> > > > > > > > >> >tried
> > > > > > > > >> >to
> > > > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad
> > > > > > > > >> >it
> > > > > > > > >> >didn't
> > > > > > > > >> >work.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> > > >
> > > > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> > >
> > > How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't
> > > "answer
> > > the
> > > question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post
> > > you've
> > > failed
> > > to "answer the question."
> >
> > "!!"?  How rich!
>
> No logical argument, eh?  No surprise there.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my
> > > > > > > > >> >> part
> > > > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > Balderdash
> > > > > > > garden.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro
> > > > > > (aka
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > Pott).
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > >
> > > On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.
> >
> > Why do you say that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden?
>
> I've pointed out all the relevant evidence in another thread, tholenbot.
> Still
> having reading comprehension problems?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 00:55:04
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: You've asked for this.  :-)

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Eric Bennett wrote:
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, bastard advocate irritant
> > in general <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > No, we just don't give a damn about Linux users which is why we mostly
> > > avoid the windows.advocacy groups.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

What alleged "Tholen"?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   01-Dec-99 00:54:17
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> How ironic,

What is "ironic" about it, Marty?

> coming from the person who took my remarks out of context in
> an
> ineffective attempt to bolster his erroneous claims

What alleged person did this, Marty?

> > > > > > How predictable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Logic can be quite predictable.
> > >
> > > Note: no response
> >
> > Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.
>
> I failed to locate the response because you failed to post it.

Incorrect.

> That's
> your
> problem, not mine.

Illogical.  That problem does not exist.

> > Of course, that is to be expected of you.
>
> Logic is to be expected of me.

Non sequitur.

> > > > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnecessary.
> > > >
> > > > Evidence, please.
> > >
> > > The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Your inability to grasp this concept is of no surprise.

Illogical.

> > > > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can
> > > > > > > prove
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > relevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Self-evident.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > Typical pontification.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.

Irrelevant, given that I have made no excuses.

> > > > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> > > > that fact.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to
> > > recognize
> > > the self-evident nature of:
> > > "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > > relevant."
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.

> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your
> > > > > > > > >> >> > idiotically
> > > > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading
> > > > > > > > >> >comprehension
> > > > > > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension
> > > > > > > > >problems in
> > > > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > >statement
> > > > > > > > >above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.

Incorrect.

> > Of course, it takes decent evidence
>
> But no "decent evidence" was provided, tholenbot.

More evidence of your lack of evidence recognition skills.

> > comprehension skills to recognize that fact.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "decent evidence".

Even more evidence of your lack of evidence recognition skills.

> > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
>
> I see you still haven't answered the question.  No surprise there.

What alleged question?

> > > > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
> > > > claims,
> > >
> > > I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.
> >
> > Another erroneous claim.
>
> Another pontification.

Impossible.

> > > > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
> > >
> > > Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
> >
> > How ironic,
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?

On the basis of your hypocrisy.

> > coming from someone who attempts to substitute many illogical things
> > for a
> > logical argument.
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I attempt to substitute many
> illogical
> things for a logical argument.

My supposition was not erroneous, Marty.

> > > > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about
> > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> question,
> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical pontification.
> > > >
> > > > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> >
> > Don't you know whether I know, Marty?
>
> It's your pontification.  You should know.

Illogical, given that I see no basis for labeling my remarks as
"pontification".

> > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know, Marty?
> > >
> > > It is impossible to know the location of something which does not
> > > exist.
> >
> > Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.
>
> Non sequitur, given that said logical argument was not posted by you to
> this
> thread.

Incorrect.

> > > > > Why,
> > > > > nowhere to be seen!
> > > >
> > > > I can see it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
> > > previously
> > > obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.
> >
> > Illogical,
>
> Incorrect.

Truth by assertion again?

> > given that I would not have been able to see it had it been obfuscated,
>
> Reading comprehension problems?  The smudge of dirt was the cause of the
> obfuscation.  Hence all you could see was said smudge.

What alleged "dirt"?

> > and given that I was not wearing glasses.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

What is this, "The Little Engine That Could"?

> > > > Comprehend context, Marty.
> > >
> > > Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.

See what I mean?

> > I see you have snipped the context
>
> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such context to be
> "snipped".

Incorrect.

> > in a vain attempt
>
> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of "an attempt".

Incorrect.

> > to obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.
>
> What alleged "assertion"?

Reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must
> > > > > > > > >> >have
> > > > > > > > >> >tried
> > > > > > > > >> >to
> > > > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad
> > > > > > > > >> >it
> > > > > > > > >> >didn't
> > > > > > > > >> >work.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> > > >
> > > > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> > >
> > > How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't
> > > "answer
> > > the
> > > question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post
> > > you've
> > > failed
> > > to "answer the question."
> >
> > "!!"?  How rich!
>
> No logical argument, eh?  No surprise there.

Illogical, given that I am still waiting for you to answer the question.

> > > > > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my
> > > > > > > > >> >> part
> > > > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > Balderdash
> > > > > > > garden.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro
> > > > > > (aka
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > Pott).
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > >
> > > On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.
> >
> > Why do you say that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden?
>
> I've pointed out all the relevant evidence in another thread, tholenbot.
> Still
> having reading comprehension problems?

Illogical.  Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 00:56:08
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:


> Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course for
> tholenbot.  Here's your context back:

Taking pontification lessons from the pontiff again, Marty?  How ironic.

> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> >
> > How ironic

Still illogical, just as the first time you posted it.  Your repetition
does not improve the logical flaws in your posting, Marty.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              30-Nov-99 23:58:02
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Wake Up !

From: Trancser <[e-mail]>


It's kind of puzzling when we talk about OS/2 now being dead, losing
support from both major hw/sw manufacturers and end user programmers, and
encouraging people to turn toward either Windows, or especially Linux,
especially now that Linux's is in the lime light, something it wasnt give
or take, a few good years back. Not overly sure why some of the bigger
software vendors out there seem to never even consider OS/2 for qualifing
worthy of making their program available for it, perhaps IBM's fault ...or
something else entirely.

Fix packs regularly being produced for OS/2, which found to fix some
problems the OS might've had, some of which the avarage user might not have
ever known of. As I am to understand, as far as programming for it, OS/2
was specifically design to be very comprehensive for both making native
programs, or porting programs from alternate OS's like windows or DOS or
some unix or unix-like systems I'm pretty sure. This didnt seem to be the
case I hear for Windows users, especially when 98 and/or NT arrived, one
had to actually ..re-write or re-compile the programs that were using on a
daily basis with windows 3.1/11 or 95, so that they could be ran with their
newer copy of windows. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is why people
were also forced to write programs for windows, instead of DOS even, as M$
is supposedly trying to completely illiminate DOS from the face of the
planet? (or is already doing so - cant seem find TO many DOS progs anymore)

Linux is coming along strong nowadays, which I am to also understand is NOT
as easy to write for, I guess especially if you were programming previously
for OS/2 (or windows?). But, I guess since the fact that the OS is not
commercially owned by anyone, but rather a single person, that people feel
their afforts wont be in vein, since the OS'll be around for a while, which
should also be a financial insentive, right? Im' kind of curious though,
what might happen if the freeware that is, is suddently no longer, it
becomes either shareware or only available to someone who is willing to pay
first before ever even being able to see it in action first?

Linux is free, but the apps MADE for it dont have to remain that way.
Perhaps the only reason they were made (and freely distributed in the first
place) was because the person using it, didnt have any other alternative
BUT to make the program, no equivalents available at all. Will people that
have become accustome to free programs, suddently no longer available,
unless they pay for it remain so content as when things were free?

OS/2's seemingly completely out of any type of light whatsoever, so much in
fact that there are a lot of people that are in fact completely unaware of
its existance all together. This can hurt things, but I personally wasnt
aware of Linux's existance for a long while myself, and even when I did
become aware, I was not really that anxious at all to suddently switch to
using it, and I had no idea that there were some programs available for it,
it was rather the idea I was comfortable myself with OS/2. It's done well
for me for many many years and it continues to. Although I will admit, for
curiousity (a few years later) I have recently installed a flavor of Linux
and regardless of its stability, and the programs that are available for
it, I still am booting to OS/2 a lot more.
    This did not seem to effect the developement or user count (which seems
to be growing daily) for the OS at all, although true, Linux's creator
doesnt seem to be objecting to software developement on its behalf at all,
but on another note, at least OS/2's creater(s) have had made SOME software
for it (OS/2)..I admittely am unaware of a program created by Linus
Torvalds other than the Linux OS.

As far as OS/2 NOT having ANY programs for it at all, is completely rubish.
Perhaps what these people that are saying this really are complaining over,
is the lack of major hw/sw companies supporting OS/2 and that seems to
becoming true a lot lately, but what I cannot understand, is that for some
of those who are complaining, I'm thinking are or could be, programmers
themselves, which to me sounds incredible. Incredible to the fact, that
their complaining when they could do some thing about this. I cant sit here
and say that programming for OS/2 is not difficult, cause I cant really
call myself a programmer, but if you have the knowlege, and you have a
glimmering theory that what you'd like to see for OS/2, YOU *YOURSELF*
might be able to accomplish, why not go ahead, and try it? If you have
friend(s) that are willing to help you develope this idea with you, by all
means, that is what makes a program come along a lot quicker, which dont
take you needing to be a programmer to realize that. I dont think that
every Linux user out there, that made their idea come to life was able to
sign contracts with major corporations which paid thousands to others, to
help their product come to life?

I know, that I might be able to do something myself, instead of sit here
and flap my mouth off to everyone else here, but to my own dismay,
programming hasnt come as something easy to grasp it seems for me, but I
will continue my efforst anyway, as I would love to bring an idea of mine
to life.

Just another OS/2 user.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 23:20:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Your arguement, at least if you're solely accusing me, is rather amusin

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

Hey, critic is as critic does.  Stop your childish accusations, they are
beginning to irritate me.

Yes, I laughed at IBM's obvious promotion - and I was a gigantic OS-fucking-2
promoter at the time (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

I'll laugh at Microsoft's or anyone else's attempt to sell a product in a
movie.  That haughty-taughty watch is something I'll avoid.  and Lord knows
BMWs are trash used mainly by drug dealers.   What else did 'The world is not
enough' peddle?  Afterall,  "Goldenmarketingcampaign" (originally known as
"Goldeneye" or just "More Shit starring Pierce Mannequin Brosnan") was in
11/1995 and I was an OS/2 fanatic at the time.  If you don't remember all of
my 50,000 rants I ***HAVE*** said before I was an OS/2 user from 4/1994 to
2/1998.  I was openly advocating OS/2 at the time yet I criticized IBM's
paltry effort.  If this were 1995 and I'd just seen this and you'd all seen my
newsgroup posts as being fanatic pro-OS/2, does that then make me a windows
advocate - because I disagreed with something that overlord nitwit IBM did?

If you think I'm one-sided on this sort of marketing issue, you are grossly
mistaken and quite obtuse as well.  Though I prefer silent marketing tactics
because NOBODY SEES THEM HENCE NOBODY IS GOING TO BUY THE BLOODY THING!  I
will still criticize them, of course, since they are surreptitiously making an
attempt.  Oh, who's going to piss on Unix because lots of unix screens were
seen on the movie "Contact", even on a PS/2 model 56 which is the oldest and
slowest piece of shit I've ever had to deal with.  Lots of Unix there, but is
Unix now the standard used on 100 million computers?  :-)

Microsoft actually deserves some CREDIT because they are not slopping their
name for extended periods of time all over the place.  If I read you right,
only the chick using the device with no camera lens pointed at the product
name.  I haven't seen the movie mainly because the previous Brosnan films are
such filthy trash unworthy of the franchise 'James Bond' and I'd rather not
see another, I'd rather be castrated with a dirty rusty fork without
anesthetics.  If I'm wrong in reading you, I apologize.  Either way I don't
like marketing in movies, especially sci-fi where by the 24th century you'd
expect Coca-cola to be happily out of business.  But those who silently
promote get an extra good spot in my book only because they don't
egocentrically show their name everywhere.   Please understand this is not a
2-dimensional IBM vs Microsoft issue, I critique all movies equally.

I recall the large widescreen Pioneer TVs which the Russians seemed to have an
affinity for (since they also displayed the name OS/2 all over the place).

Anyway, IBM's little stunt was appallingly obvious, and so badly done people
avoided it anyway.  "What's a OS/2?" they might say?  Is it a new brand of
condom?  And thos who knew OS/2 wondered what the fuck IBM was on when they
had to use the cover of a SAMS book instead of using their own OS/2 logo
(neither the wavy word nor the 5 colored circles was used, only the SAMS book
text)!  If IBM can't use the logos it designed for its own product, what are
people going to think?!  ONCE AGAIN, IBM WAS SHOWING THE PEOPLE IT REALLY
DIDN'T GIVE A FUCK.  First it was showing the universe that it preferred
proliferating Windows NT on their brand-name boxes and now they can't use the
logo they designed for their own operating system!  That is so lame!

And you accuse me of being a windows advocate when IBM is obviously and
directly guilty of being one!

You don't seem to understand, partly because of your infintile opinions
regarding OS/2 and how everyone else has apparently treated it so badly (we
only follow IBM's lead, which is noticable to those who can see the truth).

Although I haven't seen the latest farce (oops, movie) I find it odd that this
article which you are holding on to for dear life, is placed in RUMORS...

I'm sorry if this ends up as still another rant against IBM but it's not hard
to be angry at them since they are solely at fault for OS/2's demise and you
seem to be more happy stereotyping anyone against OS/2 instantly as a windows
advocate without thought or reason.

josco wrote:

> For those windows lovers who laughed at the OS/2 WARP promotion in a James
> Bond Movie. See if you can find the WinCE logo in the newest moive.
>
> http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a
>
> For the benefit of us film buffs, Microsoft hosted a preview of the
> upcoming James Bond movie, "The World Is Not Enough." The crowd of tech
> press and analysts laughed, on cue, at references to the millennium bug
> and applauded when the HP Jornada was spotted on actress Denise Richards,
> who uses the palm-sized PC to disable a nuclear warhead.
>
> "Denise," as one Microsoft product manager fondly referred to her, will
> also do promotions for the struggling Windows CE operating system during
> the run of the movie. But apparently Microsoft and HP didn't get what they
> paid for when they split the $300,000 bill to get the product placement,
> one insider said. In the movie, the audience only gets the faintest
> glimpse of the PalmPilot wannabe.
>
> -- joseph

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 02:00:29
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Wake Up !

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Trancser wrote:
>
> I know, that I might be able to do something myself, instead of sit here
> and flap my mouth off to everyone else here, but to my own dismay,
> programming hasnt come as something easy to grasp it seems for me, but I
> will continue my efforst anyway, as I would love to bring an idea of mine
> to life.

Just remember that you don't have to go at it alone.  There are plenty of OS/2
coders out there willing to help from the most basic to the most advance
problems you have.  COOProgrammer.Misc is a superb resource, as well as
various
developer web sites, and even IRC sometimes.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 23:54:15
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: When will it be 100% done?

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

After all, the Opera people DEMANDED that OS/2 users pay the $35 fee UP
FRONT as a 'sign of loyalty'.  OS/2 users paid and are still waiting for
a return on their little investment since they had to prove to Opera
that they were worth it.

Um, selling goods which do not exist is illegal the last time I heard.

Or have they changed their tune since the beginning and (hopefully)
refunded money to the people they embezzled until they actually and
finally delivered the goods they promised 2 generations of CPU ago!

Oh, your tone implies you are Opera.  I should have noticed earlier...

Splendid!  So much the better, it's about time I get a chance to say
this directly...

How dare you say "Soon after the windows version" under the
circumstances?

Hurry your pathetic [censored] up before people really do get annoyed at
your inability to program for non-Windows platforms.  [okay, I'm
impressed that you've hurried up on BeOS considering it's the newest
platform out there and that people who've paid you a line time ago are
still nowehere near a beta version!]  It's been HOW MANY YEARS since
you've peddled for money under the pretense of "You the consumer have to
prove to us that you are worthy", and I was still an OS/2 fanatic at the
time.  To this day none of the non-Windows versions is nowhere near
complete yet!   I don't know what stopped me from shelling out the
money, but I was tempted to send you the $35 at the time.  Maybe you
made it sound that if you had the sufficient amount of 'votes' that
you'd hurry up and prove your worth.  But then I quickly remmebered that
we live in a capitalistic society and thus conform to a certain set of
rules.  You've bent them and I'm being polite in the accusation.

I am a consumer advocate in general and if I were told that I had to pay
up front, for whatever reason, and never got anything by now I would be
VERY angry and on the verge of slapping a lawsuit against you.
Especially in a market which evolves unusually quickly and renders
hardware and software obsolete.

Of course, I wouldn't be stupid enough to pay for anything in advance.
Unlike the Emperor, I want to *see* my new clothes before wearing them
in public.  :-)

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves and not saying "golly gee whiz, we
finally got half of it done and it's only been over 2 years!!!"

Also, as a sidenote, it's amusing to point out that you must have put
higher priority to Linux and MacOS than to OS/2.  Or is OS/2 so
difficult to program for that you're having great difficulties in
acheiving your task, pardon me for being shallow?  I've always wanted to
know why that OS/2 consistently lagged behind when it was the OS/2
community who you begged for help (and money) in the first place!  You
people are truly low!

But someday you'll realize that businesses are here for the consumer and
not the other way around.  That's one of the reasons why America is a
proverbial toilet whose flushing mechanism has failed.  Businesses are
so arrogant that they can push and manipulate consumers all they want
with little fear of retaliation.

Now, where's Stardock with their little Object Desktop Network
Nonsensical program?  They decided to cut my subscription by 8 months
and I've complained to them THREE TIMES, with the third finally getting
a reply "We'll look into it and get back to you" - oh, I'm still waiting
for a reply and it's been months.  I signed up when they were peddling
the program for $50/2 years.  Then they cut a few months out of mine for
no reason so I have to dig up documentation because even though law
requires the business to keep records, it is universally the consumer's
responsibility (don't consumers have rights any more?) to prove they are
right - when most of the problems are always on the company's side!  And
when you do get to talk to them, depending on the company and/or the
people you talk to, you get pushed aside or threatened and here you are
trying to be civil when dealing with them - forgive me for no longer
being civil when pointing out despicable *little* companies who seem to
forget about who they need in order to survive.  I'm tired of playing by
the rules only to have rules broken against me in return.  Anyway, I
don't care any more since I uninstalled the product and have no
intention of using it.

josco wrote:

> http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
> OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
> Linux:  +11 out of 20
> MacOS:  +12 out of 20
>
> We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
> version.
>
> -- joseph

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 00:05:06
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>

I'll submit that I do have a nasty side and negative attitude.

And one way or the other, regardless of opinion or attitude, I've now
realized something - and this applies to every other person in this
forum whether they are pro-OS/2 or against-OS/2 or affilliated with OS/2
such as Stardock or Opera.

I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
here.

OS/2 is out of my life.  I should be grateful that my years of using it
hadn't cost me any more and that I should be spending my energies
finding a social life rather than arguing (either for or against
something.)

Why I'm clinging to it in any way shape or form is still something I
don't understand, especially since I hate IBM for all I'm worth, but I'm
going to let it go.  Unlike Ishmael, Khan, Picard, or other vengeful
lunatics I refuse to let hatred take me over.  I choose to walk away
from it.

Y'all can live in your state of grand delusion and sing all you want
about whatever you want.

You can consider this a victory for yourselves if you want.  I merely
want to be free of such infintile arguements.  I'll leave those to you
since you seem to enjoy them more than me.  I personally could care less
about this victory I bestow upon you since there are better things to do
in life than priss on about something as shallow as a computer operating
system.

Even I pointed out, without fully realizing it, that applications make
the computer.  What's the point of having something if you cannot use it
to its full potential?  I won't go into examples since that would
instantly betray what I have already said.  As if you'd have the
capability to comprehend anyway.

If nothing else, I hope that only the previous two paragraphs will sink
into your teensy little brains.

Cheers,

K. R.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     01-Dec-99 07:22:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: WARP, James Bond and the Invisible WinCE Promotion

From: [e-mail] (Glen D)

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:32:57, josco <[e-mail]> wrote:

> For those windows lovers who laughed at the OS/2 WARP promotion in a James
> Bond Movie. See if you can find the WinCE logo in the newest moive.
>
> http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a
>
> For the benefit of us film buffs, Microsoft hosted a preview of the
> upcoming James Bond movie, "The World Is Not Enough." The crowd of tech
> press and analysts laughed, on cue, at references to the millennium bug
> and applauded when the HP Jornada was spotted on actress Denise Richards,
> who uses the palm-sized PC to disable a nuclear warhead.
>
> "Denise," as one Microsoft product manager fondly referred to her, will
> also do promotions for the struggling Windows CE operating system during
> the run of the movie. But apparently Microsoft and HP didn't get what they
> paid for when they split the $300,000 bill to get the product placement,
> one insider said. In the movie, the audience only gets the faintest
> glimpse of the PalmPilot wannabe.
>
>
> -- joseph
>

I saw the film last night and don't recall seeing Win CE at all.  What
a waste of $300,000 :-)

Glen D
-<remove Z from my e-mail Address>-

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RemarQ http://www.remarQ.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 02:31:07
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
> > If you're thinking that Microsoft somehow destroyed CP/M through their
> > might in the market you just don't remember what it was like.  Microsoft
> > was a pretty small player in those days.  Gates just played the cards
> > really, really well -- and I for one applaud him for taking IBM down.
> > We all benefitted.
>
> Taking IBM down? You really are badly misinformed. IBM is many, many times
> larger than MicroSoft. IBM still garners more revenue each year from
> software than MS.

Certainly, but IBM no longer rules the computer world with an iron fist.
Microsoft wasn't the only reason for that but they sure did help.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  01-Dec-99 07:43:20
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw [e-mail] write:
> >Does Microsoft send people to force you to buy their products?  Which gun
> >is being placed at your skull?
> >Or is it a matter of Microsoft "forcing you" to buy the product by
> >providing a valued product at an affordable rate?
>
> Where do you get this nonsense from?

From an attempt to determine the mechanism Microsoft used to force this poor
man into giving them money.

>                                    If you read the Findings of Fact, as
> you claim to have done, you either do not understand US law and how
> markets are controlled

US law and how markets are controlled are directly opposed to one another.

> BTW, do you think the US DOJ antitrust action against IBM that essentially
> allowed MS have a market share was a good thing or bad thing?

The quarter century trial against IBM was a sham.  But I'm hardly going to
punish Microsoft for an improper DOJ action.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                  01-Dec-99 07:51:22
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Larsen Commander 1.0

From: "Lennart Gahm" <[e-mail]>

It looks really nice. Almost as fast as File Commander.
I turned of header bar and saved some wasted space.
Nice to be able to scroll back on commando sessions.
Since i am use to NC and FC, it is nice that you have
kept functionskey the same.

Any tips on speeding up zip-decrompessing? On my system LC
now uses Warp-Zip, the default zip-handler.
On FC i use textbased Unzip, witch is much faster.

Thanks, Lennart Gahm

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 01:59:46 -0100 (CET), Leif-Erik Larsen wrote:

>Who says there are no new software for OS/2?
>
>Check out Larsen Commander 1.0.
>It is a powerful GUI File Manager and Command Processor that
>has a look and feel like the classic Norton Commander. The most notable
>difference is that the Larsen Commander is pure GUI. Still it has a built
>in command line and a scrollable console monitor.
>
>Larsen Commander combines the very best of two very different worlds;
>- the command line and the file management panels. Both available at the
>same time, and even in parallel while commands are running in the
>background!
>
>You can download it and find more information at
>
>   http://home.sol.no/~leilarse/lcmd/index.html
>
>
>



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 08:57:15
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Opera Two Browser (To the tune of Super Soul Fighter)

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

Just a little song about Opera/2, which is OF COURSE coming RSN.

Opera/2 Browser
(Sung to the tune of "Super Soul Fighter")
(With respects to Lenny Kravitz)

Soul browser space app
Flying through the sky
404s and Errors
Defending you and I

He's spreading Opera/2 vibrations
For a better day
Electronic Opera Two vibrations
Coming soon some day

Opera Two
Opera Two Opera Two Browser's Coming
Yes he's coming
Opera Two
Opera Two Opera Two Browser's Coming
Yes he's coming

The lord of Navigator
He don't want us to be free
But he can't stop our Opera
On his Supersonic V

He's spreading funk throughout the newsgroups
And for you he will play
Electronic Opera Two vibrations
has come to load the page

Opera/2
Opera Two Opera Two Browser's Coming
Yes he's coming
Opera/2
Opera Two Opera Two Browser's Coming
Yes he's coming

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         01-Dec-99 08:55:25
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Kelly Robinson writes:

> I'll submit that I do have a nasty side and negative attitude.

Agreed.

> And one way or the other, regardless of opinion or attitude, I've now
> realized something - and this applies to every other person in this
> forum whether they are pro-OS/2 or against-OS/2 or affilliated with OS/2
> such as Stardock or Opera.

How can what you realized about yourself apply to every other person in
this forum?

> I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
> here.

Did you feel as though you did previously?

> OS/2 is out of my life.

Obviously not yet, considering your participation in this newsgroup.

> I should be grateful that my years of using it hadn't cost me any
> more and that I should be spending my energies finding a social life
> rather than arguing (either for or against something.)

Apparently some people consider this newsgroup a part of their social
lives.

> Why I'm clinging to it in any way shape or form is still something I
> don't understand,

If you ever do understand it, try to help the others who cling to this
newsgroup, even though they don't actively use OS/2.

> especially since I hate IBM for all I'm worth, but I'm going to let
> it go.

That's your decision.

> Unlike Ishmael, Khan, Picard, or other vengeful lunatics I refuse to
> let hatred take me over.  I choose to walk away from it.

And this newsgroup?

> Y'all can live in your state of grand delusion and sing all you want
> about whatever you want.

What alleged "grand delusion"?

> You can consider this a victory for yourselves if you want.

Victory over what?

> I merely want to be free of such infintile arguements.

Illogical, given that the Windows newsgroups also have "infintile"
arguments.  Choice of operating system won't help free you from such.

> I'll leave those to you since you seem to enjoy them more than me.

Who are you referring to when you say "you"?

> I personally could care less about this victory I bestow upon you

Victory over what?

> since there are better things to do in life than priss on about
> something as shallow as a computer operating system.

If you ever do understand why you have "prissed" on to this point, try
to help the others who cling to this newsgroup, even though they don't
actively use OS/2.

> Even I pointed out, without fully realizing it, that applications make
> the computer.  What's the point of having something if you cannot use
> it to its full potential?  I won't go into examples since that would
> instantly betray what I have already said.

Didn't your posting already do that?

> As if you'd have the capability to comprehend anyway.

Who are you referring to when you say "you"?  I, for one, have been
telling people to use the right tool for the job for a long time.

> If nothing else, I hope that only the previous two paragraphs will sink
> into your teensy little brains.

Who are you referring to when you say "your"?

Yes, you do have a nasty side.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 09:02:18
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

I'm back! Miss me? No? Balderdash.


--Aaron Dimsdale

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 09:06:08
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:44:33 -0500, tholenbot wrote:

>In article <bhx04.5937$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:25:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
>>
>> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
>> >> >> >> >> >>> word blatant.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
>> >> >> >> >> >> example of
>> >> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
>> >> >> >> >> > blatant.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Illogically,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
>> >> >> >> >I would
>> >> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
>> >> >> >> >had not
>> >> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
>> >> >> >> >Get over
>> >> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't you know, Aaron?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy
>> >tending your
>> >Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.
>> >
>> >> >> Are you a two-year-old?
>> >> >
>> >> >Irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, quite relevant.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Incorrect.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills to
>recognize that fact.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>> >> >
>> >> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
>> >> >relevant.
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
>> >nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.

Self-evident.

>> >> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> >> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
>> >> >> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
>> >> >> >> >> > inappropriate
>> >> >> >> >> > question?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
>> >> >> >> >facilities.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
>> >> >> >statement
>> >> >> >above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >See above.
>> >>
>> >> Note: No comment.
>> >
>> >No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> > Here you go:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
>> >> >> >> >> question,
>> >> >> >> >> Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Self-evident.
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash.
>> >
>> >Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

Balderdash.

>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> "lie/game" any
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
>> >> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
>> >> >> >> >painfully
>> >> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No comment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Note: no comment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
>> >> >
>> >> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.
>> >
>> >No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.
>>
>> What I appear to be doing does not matter.
>
>What does not matter is irrelevant.  What you can prove is relevant.

Balderdash, tholenbot.

>> >> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
>> >> >> >> >> > embarassment.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
>> >> >> >> >tried to
>> >> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
>> >> >> >> >didn't work.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >See above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >> >
>> >> >Not at all, Aaron.
>> >>
>> >> Poppycock.
>> >
>> >Typical pontification.  No surprise there.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Irrelevant.

Balderdash, tholenbot.

>> >> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part
>> >> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Self-evident.
>> >> >
>> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
>> >> >Balderdash
>> >> >garden.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>>
>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>On what basis do you make this claim?

Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, tholenbot? How predictable.

>> >> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.
>> >
>> >Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden
>> >in lieu
>> >of a logical argument.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Balderdash.

>> I see you've snipped the evidence that you've snipped the evidence in
>> the last message of yours. How convenient.
>
>Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Aaron?  How predictable.

Balderdash.

> I do not "approve" phrases.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> -- Dave Tholen

Irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                  01-Dec-99 09:16:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Um, liar is as liar does so take me off your inaccurate list

From: "Lennart Gahm" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:04:11 -0500, Christopher J Houle wrote:

>>  -------------------------------
>> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
>> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
>> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
>
>By the way Bobbie, nobody gives a damn what your running. Smarten up, there's
no prize to be won
>for running any one OS over another. If you were here I'd bitchslap you just
for including
>something like this as a signature.
>
>Maybe you should write to IBM, they may have a reward for the biggest
suckass. Or, perhaps you
>could get a job boot polishing for some of the upper management ?

You are wrong. You do not speak for me or hardly everybody else. I decides if
it's importent to me to notice what OS others use. If you don't care what Bob
uses you should not even bother to write the above.

Lennart, running Warp 4 FP12, but what do Christopher care?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         01-Dec-99 09:21:29
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451514

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Does Dimsdale even realize that "tholenbot" is Eric Bennett?  Here's
today's digest:

1> No, Dave.

Then why bother?

1> No, Dave.

Then why bother?

1> No, Dave.

2> I'm back! Miss me? No? Balderdash.

3> Balderdash, tholenbot.

3> Balderdash, tholenbot.

3> Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, tholenbot? How predictable.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         01-Dec-99 09:22:24
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451514

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty seems to be completely unaware that my digest showed up in the
Mac newsgroup because I was responding to one of his articles about
me that was posted to the Mac newsgroup.  As usual, he's trying to
blame me for something he caused.  And one can only wonder whether
his exchanges with Eric Bennett are indirectly part of the "infantile
game" that he's been playing on me.  Here's today's digest:

1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough, he continued
1> his infantile digest game.  He also seems to be admitting again
1> (unwittingly, as usual) that his own behavior is infantile, as he
1> has called my behavior infantile when I have emulated him.  This
1> shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  Of more note, however, is
1> that he has decided once again to spread his infantile digest game
1> across to the Mac newsgroup, as if they hadn't had enough of (what
1> Dave refers to himself as) Dave's "baby-talk tripe".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> How embarrassing, coming from the inept fool whose "digest" presently
1> adds nothing to two (!!) distinct newsgroups.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Poor ignorant Dave.  He still doesn't realize that the only times I
1> have responded with that phrase were to his baseless accusations of
1> playing an infantile game.  It was done to show Dave's usual brand
1> of hypocrisy, seeing as how he originated the quote in his own
1> hypocritical infantile game with Eric Bennett.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Actually quite substantiated, as Tholen failed to realize how
1> dropping a pantload could become a cleaner's problem.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say Dave said he was.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Dave was the one that made the claim that they aren't.  Where is his
1> proof?  Why, nowhere to be seen!  I never claimed that they were,
1> nor that I wanted to believe that they were.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Interesting to whom?  CSMA?  Dubious.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> As is his right to do so.  That doesn't make him correct.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Actually, he chooses to remain logical so he can avoid supporting
1> Dave's position.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?

2> Don't you know, tholenbot?

3> There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.

3> What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?

3> Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.

3> Don't you know, tholenbot?

4> I can't see what hasn't happened, tholenbot, not even with dirty
4> glasses.

4> Don't you know, tholenbot?

4> Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.
4> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

4> Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.
4> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

4> To whom, tholenbot?  You?

4> I cannot locate what doesn't exist, tholenbot.

4> What's allegedy "illogical" about it, tholenbot?

4> Balderdash, tholenbot.

4> No tholenbot, I cannot see the piece of dirt on your glasses
4> obfuscating your vision.

5> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                 30-Nov-99 18:33:04
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:3843fb0c$12$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <81vaju$3ik$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 08:53 PM,
>    "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:
[snip]
> > > Well, Seattle Computer would beg to disagree since they successfully
sued
> > > MS for ripping off DOS.
>
> > Oh?
>
> Well, they took a payment of something like $950,000 to drop the suit. MS
> is not in the habit of paying when they are right.

Aren't they? If you assume that "when MS settles they must be wrong" it is
easy to prove that they have never settled a case where they were in the
right. But it isn't very interesting.

> > > Since it was in bankruptcy at the time the suit
> > > was settled, it agreed to a settlement of less than a million dollars
just
> > > before the jury was about to award many times that amount.
>
> > So Microsoft settled, then. Why? What was the basis of the suit?
>
> Seattle Computer claimed that their license was only for Version 1.0 of
> DOS. MS disagreed. Seattle Computer also claimed that the license gave
> them the right to provide a free (to Seattle Computer) copy of DOS with
> every processor they sold. When DOS got big and Seattle couldn't compete
> for machines, they agreed to sell the company to a third party who
> admittedly planned to sell 8088 processors and DOS at retail. MS claimed
> the license wasn't transferrable and that Seattle had no rights to any
> version of DOS beyond 1.0. Rulings by the court squashed that bit of
> hipocricy and MS realized that if they didn't settle, they could lose DOS
> to Seattle's proposed owner since by that time 8088's could be had in
> quantity for less than a buck apiece.

I see. I would be very surprised if MS was wrong about DOS versions;
Aplpe tried the same stunt with them and MS *won* on that, after
all.

But Seattle having an *indefinite* right of resale on MS-DOS would
be intolerable; better to settle if by so doing you can avoid that.

Plus, their effort to *prevent* this (that "but only version 1" foolishness)
shoots their own defense in the foot. Truly, a defense worthy of this
later DoJ fiasco.

I think you've given me the missing element. Thanks.

It's well to remember that court cases are not the same thing
as historical fact. MS apparently had good an compelling
reasons to settle, on any terms they could get- reasons that had
nothing to do with whether they stole DOS or not.

Not that weasling out of their licensing agreement with Seatle
Computer after the fact is particularly *nice*, mind you.

[snip]



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     01-Dec-99 12:45:18
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Corey

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Mirage Media (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 18:32:28
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451513

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
> his "infantile game" on me as well.  Here's today's digest:

As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough, he continued his
infantile digest game.  He also seems to be admitting again (unwittingly, as
usual) that his own behavior is infantile, as he has called my behavior
infantile when I have emulated him.  This shouldn't come as a surprise to
anyone.  Of more note, however, is that he has decided once again to spread
his
infantile digest game across to the Mac newsgroup, as if they hadn't had
enough
of (what Dave refers to himself as) Dave's "baby-talk tripe".

> 1> Dave again restates the obvious and adds nothing to the discussion.
> 1> No surprise there.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person whose "infantile game" adds nothing
> to the discussion.

How embarrassing, coming from the inept fool whose "digest" presently adds
nothing to two (!!) distinct newsgroups.

> 2> Sure beats, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going
> 2> through all of this?"
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who started down that path.

Poor ignorant Dave.  He still doesn't realize that the only times I have
responded with that phrase were to his baseless accusations of playing an
infantile game.  It was done to show Dave's usual brand of hypocrisy, seeing
as
how he originated the quote in his own hypocritical infantile game with Eric
Bennett.

> 3> Dave has no idea what a "cleaner" even is.  Be kind.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Actually quite substantiated, as Tholen failed to realize how dropping a
pantload could become a cleaner's problem.

> 3> Don't worry Dave, he wasn't calling *you* a wimp.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say he was.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say Dave said he was.

> 3> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary.  If you want to think that crows read this newsgroup, go
> right ahead, Marty.

Dave was the one that made the claim that they aren't.  Where is his proof?
Why, nowhere to be seen!  I never claimed that they were, nor that I wanted to
believe that they were.

> Ran across an interesting tidbit in comp.os.os2.misc.

Interesting to whom?  CSMA?  Dubious.

> Seems that the poster below also disagrees with the position held by Timbol
> and Marty.

As is his right to do so.  That doesn't make him correct.

> And Bass chooses to remain ignorant so he can avoid supporting my
> position.

Actually, he chooses to remain logical so he can avoid supporting Dave's
position.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               30-Nov-99 18:35:21
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Dimsdale Digest Part Deux

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> Well, it seems that Malloy is at it again. Nuff said.

How ironic, coming from someone who is "at it again."  Nuff said.

> 1> Below, a summary of everything useful Tholen's ever uttered on
> 1> uselessnet, his job:
>
> What alleged uselessnet, Joe?

Don't you know, Aaron?

> 1> [Where are they?  Why, nowhere to be seen!]
>
> I can't find your logical arguments either, Joe.

Guess your glasses are dirty again.  How convenient.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   01-Dec-99 12:17:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451514

From: [e-mail] (Pascal Haakmat)

Dave Tholen wrote:

>Marty seems to be completely unaware that my digest showed up in the
>Mac newsgroup because I was responding to one of his articles about
>me that was posted to the Mac newsgroup.  As usual, he's trying to
>blame me for something he caused.  And one can only wonder whether
>his exchanges with Eric Bennett are indirectly part of the "infantile
>game" that he's been playing on me.  Here's today's digest:

Dave, how have I missed you. It is nice to see Eric Bennett, primus inter
pares, was pivotal to your belated and much anticipated return in csma.

--
CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                01-Dec-99 12:20:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: WARP, James Bond and the Invisible WinCE Promotion

From: [e-mail] (rj friedman)

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:32:57, josco <[e-mail]>
wrote:

εBut apparently Microsoft and HP didn't get what they
εpaid for when they split the $300,000 bill to get the product placement,
εone insider said. In the movie, the audience only gets the faintest
εglimpse of the PalmPilot wannabe.

To say nothing of the fact that MS has now decided to drop
the marketing disaster WinCE name. They are hoping that by
calling their handhelds "Windows powered," all the suckers
that buy Windows to begin with will happily shell out (not
realizing that what they are buying is the same old drek).


________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman          Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan       [e-mail]

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: SEEDNet News Service (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  01-Dec-99 07:43:25
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451514^-999999999

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Tholen seems to be completely unaware.  As usual, he's trying to blame me
for something he caused.  And one can only wonder whether his exchanges with
Eric Bennett are indirectly part of the "infantile game" that he's been
playing on me.  Here's today's digest:

[nothing yet!]

You're welcome!



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  01-Dec-99 07:45:21
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Mini-digest, volume 2451514.-99999999999

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Does Tholen even realize that "tholenbot" is making fun of him?  Here's
today's digest:

[still nothing]

No problem!


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             01-Dec-99 12:36:18
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <821m80$c2i$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another
major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soft spot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>....and again.
>
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>> ....and again.
>
> >> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> > ....and again.
>
> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

...and again.

The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 14:45:28
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: "DLO News" <[e-mail]>

Something like:

"Oh dear, what a pity, never mind"

or

"we are sorry to see you go, but we would hate to stand in your way"

seems appropriate



Kelly Robinson wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
>I'll submit that I do have a nasty side and negative attitude.
>
>And one way or the other, regardless of opinion or attitude, I've now
>realized something - and this applies to every other person in this
>forum whether they are pro-OS/2 or against-OS/2 or affilliated with OS/2
>such as Stardock or Opera.
>
>I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
>here.
>
>OS/2 is out of my life.  I should be grateful that my years of using it
>hadn't cost me any more and that I should be spending my energies
>finding a social life rather than arguing (either for or against
>something.)
>
>Why I'm clinging to it in any way shape or form is still something I
>don't understand, especially since I hate IBM for all I'm worth, but I'm
>going to let it go.  Unlike Ishmael, Khan, Picard, or other vengeful
>lunatics I refuse to let hatred take me over.  I choose to walk away
>from it.
>
>Y'all can live in your state of grand delusion and sing all you want
>about whatever you want.
>
>You can consider this a victory for yourselves if you want.  I merely
>want to be free of such infintile arguements.  I'll leave those to you
>since you seem to enjoy them more than me.  I personally could care less
>about this victory I bestow upon you since there are better things to do
>in life than priss on about something as shallow as a computer operating
>system.
>
>Even I pointed out, without fully realizing it, that applications make
>the computer.  What's the point of having something if you cannot use it
>to its full potential?  I won't go into examples since that would
>instantly betray what I have already said.  As if you'd have the
>capability to comprehend anyway.
>
>If nothing else, I hope that only the previous two paragraphs will sink
>into your teensy little brains.
>
>Cheers,
>
>K. R.
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 14:42:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:48:19, Forrest Gehrke
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> An interesting sidelight to all this: The Wall Street Journal
> reported a listing of economic freedom by country which was
> jointly done by WSJ and the Heritage Foundation.
> The ranking of economically Free countries:
>
>   1. HongKong
>   2. Singapore
>   3. New Zealand
>   4. Bahrain
>      Luxembourg
>      U.S.
>   7. Ireland
>   8. Australia
>      Switzerland
>      U.K.
>
> Under Mostly Free the list starts off with:
>
>   11. Canada.
> //
I recomend that anyone who believes that Hong Kong or
Singapore are free countries try tangling with their legal
systems when opposing the governments! Or read Geoffrey
Robertson's book.
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 14:42:09
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:24:45, Jim Frost
<[e-mail]> wrote:

[snip]
> > > But that doesn't improve the initial learning curve.
[snip]
> > Yes it does, because clues to CLI options that are invisible are shown to
> > the user (baloon help, tooltips, hints applets etc) while they are
> > performing the operation.
Baloon help?? Well any way I have never found Balloon halp
helpful
[snip]
> My teaching style is goal-oriented:
[snip]
> jim frost
> [e-mail]
And my question is how much use is that if someone moves the
goal posts?
Without any understanding of the processes or procedures
what use is someone who can click and double click on the
"right (correct) button"?  An "update" or change (eg
WordPerfect to Word) renders their "skill" useless.
Goal oriented teaching suffers from this (and never mind the
trainers temptation to get repeat business).
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net
PS mac and windows trimmed from the pleathora of advocacy
groups that this is going to solely on the basis that I'd
never read a reply in those groups!!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 14:42:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:25:12, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote in part:

> I would think that someone at IBM Australia would be able to provide you
> with information on International Assist.  When one wants information, one
> gives the operator who answers the call his/her name, company if
> applicable, address, phone number, and fax number. Then they contact you
> with the information as I understand it.
>
Bob,
Thanks for the reply I've only quoted the bit of it here to
illustrate IBM's deficiencies (as I see it).

I have contacted IBM Australia on a number of occasions
(starting with os/2 2.1) over time they have gone from very
helpful to helpful when you found the right person to less
than helpful to nonresponsive.
Most recently 2x telephone calls and 1x email enquiring
about WSeB unreturned and unacknowledged - and all I want to
know is the AUS$ price of it (WSeB's existence (and of
course price) was not even on the IBM Australia website as
an IBM product!  Which leads me to the sad conclusion that
they aren't even interested in OS/2 for anybody (OK I have
to accept that IBM has decided that they don't want to push
it to SOHO or small users- I am not happy about that
either). But I would have thought that their interest level
would at least be up to allowing me to make a internal (to
my country) call to find out about a product they sell.
FWIW I called their national line number today (like other
big corps and Government they no longer let you call the
local branch you have to go through a switsth network first)
after talking to a person (eventually) I still don't even
know if I can get software choice (or how much it will cost
me!).
My general mood was not improved by spending what seemed to
be an exessive amount of time trying to find the IBM site
that has all the y2k fixes for all parts of OS/2 Warp (base
system fix packs, device driver packs, TCP/IP fix packs, are
there do I need MPTS fix packs? or anything else for the
stuff that to me was all part of the OS)
PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
y2k compliance?
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net
This response was deliberately Xposted to comp.os.os2.misc

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 14:42:09
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:56:47, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote in part:

> The Attorney General of Quebec prosecuted the mayor and fire chief of a
> town in southern Quebec near the US border because the refused to have
> their new fire truck's sign repainted to use French when a new census
> showed that there were 2 more Francophones in the town than Anglophones.
>
> That is not a free country.
>
I'm sorry but I cannot see the connection between an illegal
act (which seems trivial) and whether or not a country is
free (leaving aside the vexed question of "what does that
mean?") A free democracy (yes I know that's introducing yet
another possibly conflating concept) ought be able to
introduce even silly laws (and I look at where I live for
examples of that!) if it wants to.
Some newsgroups trimmed from this response.

Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      01-Dec-99 15:17:16
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Richard A Crane? ([e-mail]?) wrote (1 Dec 1999 14:42:21 GMT):
>PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
>upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
>alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure

http://207.46.131.137

But, as you've found out, the fat lady sung even down there a long, long
time ago.  This will get you what you need, but probably not what you
want.





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     01-Dec-99 16:34:11
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Richard,
Check out http://www.mensys.nl/indexuk.html
It's a Dutch company and has a cd of various Fixpacks, Netscape
Communicator, Acrobat Reader, Java 1.1.8, etc. It's dirt cheap, only
$11.47US....I think it's a great bargain. It'll certain save you money
on downloads :^)

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html

Richard A Crane wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:25:12, Bob Germer
> <[e-mail]> wrote in part:
>
> > I would think that someone at IBM Australia would be able to provide you
> > with information on International Assist.  When one wants information, one
> > gives the operator who answers the call his/her name, company if
> > applicable, address, phone number, and fax number. Then they contact you
> > with the information as I understand it.
> >
> Bob,
> Thanks for the reply I've only quoted the bit of it here to
> illustrate IBM's deficiencies (as I see it).
>
> I have contacted IBM Australia on a number of occasions
> (starting with os/2 2.1) over time they have gone from very
> helpful to helpful when you found the right person to less
> than helpful to nonresponsive.
> Most recently 2x telephone calls and 1x email enquiring
> about WSeB unreturned and unacknowledged - and all I want to
> know is the AUS$ price of it (WSeB's existence (and of
> course price) was not even on the IBM Australia website as
> an IBM product!  Which leads me to the sad conclusion that
> they aren't even interested in OS/2 for anybody (OK I have
> to accept that IBM has decided that they don't want to push
> it to SOHO or small users- I am not happy about that
> either). But I would have thought that their interest level
> would at least be up to allowing me to make a internal (to
> my country) call to find out about a product they sell.
> FWIW I called their national line number today (like other
> big corps and Government they no longer let you call the
> local branch you have to go through a switsth network first)
> after talking to a person (eventually) I still don't even
> know if I can get software choice (or how much it will cost
> me!).
> My general mood was not improved by spending what seemed to
> be an exessive amount of time trying to find the IBM site
> that has all the y2k fixes for all parts of OS/2 Warp (base
> system fix packs, device driver packs, TCP/IP fix packs, are
> there do I need MPTS fix packs? or anything else for the
> stuff that to me was all part of the OS)
> PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
> upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
> alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
> y2k compliance?
> Richard A Crane
> Barrister & Solicitor
> slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
> octa4.net.au
> OR rcrane AT attglobal.net


> This response was deliberately Xposted to comp.os.os2.misc

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Mirage Media (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 10:42:03
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:

: I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
: here.

Woo hoo.  I love it when a windows user smartens up and leaves the OS/2
users groups.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 08:05:23
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Jim Frost <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > > It's not a cultural thing, it's a cognitive association thing.  New
users
> > have
> > > to learn the association between command and action no matter what
that
> > > command is called.
> > >
> >
> > Back then the children didn't spend their formative years, playing
VCR's,
> > Nintendo or watching cartoons that use computer jargon in everyday life.
> > These things would make that association far more expeditious. This
returns
> > it to a 'cultural thing.'
>
> Even if this is the case it benefits CLI and GUI alike.  But I don't think
it
> is; the things you talk about expose at best very limited functionality
and
> usually do it through very clunky interfaces.  They also avoid the jargon
that
> is typical of computer applications.
>

They don't avoid the jargon, they actively use it.  Watch the
transformers(what ever the current incarnattion is) with your kids sometime.

> Modern applications have literally hundreds of functions.  VCRs have, at
best,
> a few tens.  Nintendo machines have even fewer than that.  You're just not
> going to get a lot of those command/function associations out of your
typical
> VCR.
>

You missed the point again.  When kids start to read they don't start out
with historical treatises they start with "See Dick run"  then they build on
this.  With the VCR and Nintendo, they are used to 1|0 as on or off, they
are used to an upward button for eject they are accustomed to filling form
data buy entering high score information and they are used to pointing
devices eliminating the complex motor skill learning you began with.

> > > There's nothing magic about a GUI; you're just replacing iconics for
text.
> > > Most of the time you end up putting in text too otherwise the user
just
> > can't
> > > figure it out.  Any wins you get from the GUI come from increased
> > bandwidth;
> > > you can display a lot more information in the same space and you have
> > > additional ways of manipulating the interface.
> > >
> > > But that doesn't improve the initial learning curve.
> > >
> >
> > Yes it does, because clues to CLI options that are invisible are shown
to
> > the user (baloon help, tooltips, hints applets etc) while they are
> > performing the operation.
>
> All of this was possible using textual interfaces.  The information
density
> wasn't as good is all.
>

The information density _IS_ the key difference.  More information can be
presented and modified on an effective gui.

> FWIW it's interesting to me to see how a lot of applications have returned
to
> the old "give them a big menu" approach, even if it now includes pictures.
> Simple menus work better than iconic interfaces.
>

But the menus are far different because of use of OO technology has made the
menus dynamic rather than static.

> > > Maybe someone will eventually prove me wrong about this but I don't
see
> > how
> > > we're going to be able to avoid the necessity of learning what the
> > possible
> > > actions actually do.  I don't think it's a management issue at all.
> > >
> > > (I take that back.  I think that a verbal/visual interface would do
it.
> > If
> > > the computer can see and understand like a human the interface would
be
> > really
> > > natural.)
> > >
> >
> > How well does your cli function without a keyboard.  GUI's do this all
the
> > time.
>
> You're changing the subject but as it turns out textual interfaces (of
which
> CLIs are a subset) can do the same things that GUIs can do without a
> keyboard.  A lot of kiosk systems worked that way a few years ago you
might
> recall.
>

Explain.

> > > > What I stated is true, I've taught beginning users on eight
different
> > > > platforms over the course of my career, and the curves ( average
> > > > functionality with course materials/time ) come out as I stated.  I
did
> > do a
> > > > study on this 6 or so years ago, but didn't keep a copy.  Since
learning
> > is
> > > > somewhat subjective, I could only track my observations.
> > >
> > > I've done it too, on at least as many platforms and over a period of
> > decades.
> > > I taught people through the command line era, through the menu-driven
era,
> > > through the text-based point-and-click era, and in the GUI era.  I
found
> > that
> > > bringing someone new up to speed slowed down with the addition of the
> > mouse.
> > >
> >
> > Which platforms and where did you start. When I teach I start with a
session
> > on the interface itself, if the interface includes a mouse that is
covered.
>
> I started back with really early PCs (the TRS-80 and Apple II) and
migrated up
> to minis (System/32, /36, VAX/VMS, UNIX) and mainframes (MVS, VPS) while
> simultaneously tracking advances in PCs (CP/M, MS-DOS, MacOS, GEM, TOS,
> Windows).  I taught people how to use all of these things.  Often I taught
the
> people who failed to learn via traditional teachers.
>
> My teaching style is goal-oriented: Teach a path through the interface
such
> that they are doing something useful with a minimum of things to learn,
then
> expand on the principles they're already using as they become comfortable
with
> those features.  This is important because exposing them to many interface
> features right away just confuses them.  Most of the time I can get a user
> working with a general-purpose system within an hour or two even if they
have
> never touched a computer before.
>
> Particularly enlightening is watching someone like that try to manage the
> mouse.  They have a hard time with it.  Positioning comes fairly quickly
but
> click and double click are tough.  Often they'll spend as much time
getting
> that down pat as they do learning the critical features of what they're
really
> interested in using.
>

Your methods are fundamentally the same as mine, but I don't see the
difficulty with the mouse.  Maybe the application of the methods and
attitude of the instructor is bearing through.  You don't see the mouse as
useful and your students have trouble using them, I do see the mouse as
useful and my students don't experience the difficulties.

> Other than that little bit of tedium I've found no significant difference
in
> learning curve between textual and graphical interfaces.
>

Humph!

> > > Unfortunately the design of most GUI programs is such that once you're
> > over
> > > the learning curve they become an efficiency inhibitor.  Mouse input
> > bandwidth
> > > is just too slow for a lot of applications.
> > >
> >
> > Only CAD and such specialized ones, that's why digitizer's in that field
> > have up to sixteen buttons on the puck.
>
> I don't really know what your point is?  Certainly there are pointer
> interfaces with a lot more bandwidth than is typical, but they're
certainly
> not what we were talking about and they still don't help with a variety of
> common applications (eg a wordprocessor).
>

Yes they do,  selecting text for formatting/cut/paste etc. is much simpler
for a beginner to understand and can be used even at views that don't allow
for fully displaying text.  Would you rather return to the . commands of
Word Star.  Compare selecting cutting and pasting text in WordStar to the
methods used in Word8.

> > Let's take file management for a second here.  Are you saying that a '$'
and
> > some arcane commands ( ls, cp, mv etc ) or a 'c:\' prompt and other
arcane
> > commands (dir, copy, move etc.) are easier for a beginner to understand
than
> > a GUI displaying a tree of folders containing sub folders?
>
> Oh no, I'm not saying that at all.  There's no reason why you can't show
that
> same tree in either interface, something that a lot of GUI advocates
readily
> forget.
>

It doesnt have the same impact when it looks like a bunch of words connected
by lines.

> What I'm saying that a menu-driven (ie textual) interface that shows that
tree
> is going to be easier to learn than a point-and-click interface, assuming
that
> you're starting from scratch with both.  This is because there are a lot
> (close to half a dozen) of gestural input conventions that have to be
learned
> prior to being able to do anything at all with the point-and-click
interface.
>

Not true.

> Another thing I'm trying to point out is that there are places where the
> arcane system works a lot better than a GUI system in time-to-usefulness.
> Launching applications is one of them.  Getting someone to type "edit" is
a
> lot easier than teaching them how to double-click on an editor icon; they
> don't have to learn special motor skills first.
>

What special motor skills? Moving ones hand is something you are born doing,
pushing a button is something one does dialing the phone, and normally
intelligent person can combine these actions based on visual cues without
much difficulty (barring physical infirmity of course).

> Considering that the first and most common thing anyone does with a
computer
> is launch an application I think this is kind of significant to the
learning
> curve.
>

You are still teaching Open application then open the file?  Time to change
paradigm, find the file you want to open, double click and the application
starts.  No typing or memorizing required.

> > > I find myself doing this more and more too.  Object/action is a very
> > useful
> > > paradigm.  But it doesn't alleviate you from the need to learn what
the
> > > commands do (same cognitive process as the command line) and it
doesn't
> > > improve the learning time for mouse gestures (the most difficult part
of
> > the
> > > process for beginning users in my experience).
> > >
> >
> > Actualy I think it does, the menu is an assciative function, it, at the
> > least gives the user a subset of the available possible actions so they
> > aren't casting fruitlessly for the invalid options.
>
> Limiting to appropriate actions has been handled in menuing systems for
years,
> long before there was a GUI interface.  But somewhere along the line you
have
> to associate the menu item with the actual function and that takes time.
> Furthermore right-click object/action systems are someone difficult to
learn
> because there are usually no cues as to which objects have them and which
> don't.
>
> jim frost
> [e-mail]


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      01-Dec-99 10:56:02
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: When will it be 100% done?

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
: After all, the Opera people DEMANDED that OS/2 users pay the $35 fee UP
: FRONT as a 'sign of loyalty'.  OS/2 users paid and are still waiting for
: a return on their little investment since they had to prove to Opera
: that they were worth it.

David, are you just plain stupid, or do you just avoid reality at all
costs.  We begged Opera to give them money up front, but they refused our
money, saying to wait till the ports done.  How many times do we have to
explain this to you, before it sticks into your brain?

: Um, selling goods which do not exist is illegal the last time I heard.

They did not do this you pea brain.

: Or have they changed their tune since the beginning and (hopefully)
: refunded money to the people they embezzled until they actually and
: finally delivered the goods they promised 2 generations of CPU ago!

How could they refund money that they never had?

: Oh, your tone implies you are Opera.  I should have noticed earlier...

: Splendid!  So much the better, it's about time I get a chance to say
: this directly...

: How dare you say "Soon after the windows version" under the
: circumstances?

What the hell are you babbling about.

: Hurry your pathetic [censored] up before people really do get annoyed at
: your inability to program for non-Windows platforms.  [okay, I'm
: impressed that you've hurried up on BeOS considering it's the newest
: platform out there and that people who've paid you a line time ago are
: still nowehere near a beta version!]

They aren't programing the non-windows version, they are using outside
programers.

: It's been HOW MANY YEARS since
: you've peddled for money under the pretense of "You the consumer have to
: prove to us that you are worthy", and I was still an OS/2 fanatic at the
: time.  To this day none of the non-Windows versions is nowhere near
: complete yet!

What are you talking about, Opera for BeOS is in Beta, and Opera for EPOC
is in beta and the MacOS version is near Alpha.

: I don't know what stopped me from shelling out the
: money, but I was tempted to send you the $35 at the time.

Opera stopped you.  They would not except your money for the port.  They
weren't excepting anyones money.

: Maybe you
: made it sound that if you had the sufficient amount of 'votes' that
: you'd hurry up and prove your worth.  But then I quickly remmebered that
: we live in a capitalistic society and thus conform to a certain set of
: rules.  You've bent them and I'm being polite in the accusation.

What are you talking about?

: I am a consumer advocate in general and if I were told that I had to pay
: up front, for whatever reason, and never got anything by now I would be
: VERY angry and on the verge of slapping a lawsuit against you.
: Especially in a market which evolves unusually quickly and renders
: hardware and software obsolete.

You were never ever told to pay up front by Opera.

: Of course, I wouldn't be stupid enough to pay for anything in advance.
: Unlike the Emperor, I want to *see* my new clothes before wearing them
: in public.  :-)

But you are stupid enough to keep spouting out these fantasies of yours
in these newsgroups, over and over again.

: Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves and not saying "golly gee whiz, we
: finally got half of it done and it's only been over 2 years!!!"

What are you talking about.  The OS/2 version had to be rebooted because
of the developement team, they have been keeping us posted on the status.

: Also, as a sidenote, it's amusing to point out that you must have put
: higher priority to Linux and MacOS than to OS/2.  Or is OS/2 so
: difficult to program for that you're having great difficulties in
: acheiving your task, pardon me for being shallow?  I've always wanted to
: know why that OS/2 consistently lagged behind when it was the OS/2
: community who you begged for help (and money) in the first place!  You
: people are truly low!

You moron, the current status of the ports now have more to do with the
ability of the programing teams rather then the importance.  At one point
OS/2 was ahead, but then the team messed it up.  The new team has caught
up nicely.  To use your logic, they must think OS/2 is now the most
important port since it is progressing the fastest at this point.  But
they don't, it's how well the people working on it do.

: But someday you'll realize that businesses are here for the consumer and
: not the other way around.  That's one of the reasons why America is a
: proverbial toilet whose flushing mechanism has failed.  Businesses are
: so arrogant that they can push and manipulate consumers all they want
: with little fear of retaliation.

What are you talking about?

: Now, where's Stardock with their little Object Desktop Network
: Nonsensical program?  They decided to cut my subscription by 8 months
: and I've complained to them THREE TIMES, with the third finally getting
: a reply "We'll look into it and get back to you" - oh, I'm still waiting
: for a reply and it's been months.  I signed up when they were peddling
: the program for $50/2 years.  Then they cut a few months out of mine for
: no reason so I have to dig up documentation because even though law
: requires the business to keep records, it is universally the consumer's
: responsibility (don't consumers have rights any more?) to prove they are
: right - when most of the problems are always on the company's side!  And
: when you do get to talk to them, depending on the company and/or the
: people you talk to, you get pushed aside or threatened and here you are
: trying to be civil when dealing with them - forgive me for no longer
: being civil when pointing out despicable *little* companies who seem to
: forget about who they need in order to survive.  I'm tired of playing by
: the rules only to have rules broken against me in return.  Anyway, I
: don't care any more since I uninstalled the product and have no
: intention of using it.

Take your personal problem elsewhere.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             01-Dec-99 08:42:14
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> I'll submit that I do have a nasty side and negative attitude.
>
> And one way or the other, regardless of opinion or attitude, I've now
> realized something - and this applies to every other person in this
> forum whether they are pro-OS/2 or against-OS/2 or affilliated with OS/2
> such as Stardock or Opera.
>
> I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
> here.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is the most
entertaining post I have ever seen from you!  And briefly skimming the
rest, I have no hesitation in nominating you for the

"Longest Goodby to OS/2 from a Non-User"

award.  Your goodbye posts have spanned months, if not years.  But now,
I think your serious, depending on the outcome of the talks in Chicago,
of course.  Congratulations.


>
> OS/2 is out of my life.  I should be grateful that my years of using it
> hadn't cost me any more and that I should be spending my energies
> finding a social life rather than arguing (either for or against
> something.)
>
> Why I'm clinging to it in any way shape or form is still something I
> don't understand, especially since I hate IBM for all I'm worth, but I'm
> going to let it go.  Unlike Ishmael, Khan, Picard, or other vengeful
> lunatics I refuse to let hatred take me over.  I choose to walk away
> from it.
>
> Y'all can live in your state of grand delusion and sing all you want
> about whatever you want.
>
> You can consider this a victory for yourselves if you want.  I merely
> want to be free of such infintile arguements.  I'll leave those to you
> since you seem to enjoy them more than me.  I personally could care less
> about this victory I bestow upon you since there are better things to do
> in life than priss on about something as shallow as a computer operating
> system.
>
> Even I pointed out, without fully realizing it, that applications make
> the computer.  What's the point of having something if you cannot use it
> to its full potential?  I won't go into examples since that would
> instantly betray what I have already said.  As if you'd have the
> capability to comprehend anyway.
>
> If nothing else, I hope that only the previous two paragraphs will sink
> into your teensy little brains.
>
> Cheers,
>
> K. R.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 01-Dec-99 17:01:08
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 17:09:08
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Billert)

Hi Richard,

On 1 Dec 1999 14:42:21 GMT, Richard A Crane wrote in
comp.os.os2.misc:

>PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
>upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
>alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
>y2k compliance?
>

have a look at http://www.warpupdates.de/

regards, Billy.
--
Thomas Billert using OS/2 Warp 4   *   OS/2-Usergroup Jena und Umgebung:
[e-mail]                  *     http://www.uni-jena.de/
http://www.billert.de              *              ~c5thbi/os2jena.html
PGP key available on my website

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      01-Dec-99 12:06:01
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:37:29
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: "Frank Field" <[e-mail]>

'Bye



Frank Field
[e-mail]
O-


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                     01-Dec-99 16:59:07
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:37:29
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snip>

'Bout damn time... Shesh.

Well, one down... Who's next? Dave, I'm looking in your direction... :)

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |But on the other hand...|
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |There's 5 more fingers. |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          01-Dec-99 18:06:27
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:37:29
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Jason
>I love it when a windows user smartens up and leaves the OS/2
>users groups...

... and wipes OS/2 off of his hard drive, and installs Windows
instead.

You must be a very happy guy. The above seems to happen a *lot*
lately.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          01-Dec-99 18:03:04
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:37:29
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>Kelly Robinson
>>Why I'm clinging to it in any way shape or form is still something I
>>don't understand,

>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>If you ever do understand it, try to help the others who cling to this
>newsgroup, even though they don't actively use OS/2.

Perhaps you can help Ian "The Moron" Tholen figure out why he clings
to (ie, the proper term in his case would be "infests") an OS/2
Advocacy newgroup when he insists that he is not an OS/2 Advocate. His
illogical, absurd, habitually hypocritical "explanations" do not
answer this question.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 13:51:06
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:37:29
Subj: How do I install fixpack 11 ?

From: Rime Saad <[e-mail]>

Hello

How do I install fixpack 11 ?  I downloaded the fixpack from the IBM FTP
site, and the file had the extention ".sh".  I do not know how to
install such a file

Thank you

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Nortel (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           01-Dec-99 20:28:01
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:38:00
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: Martin Brown <[e-mail]>

Thomas Billert wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> On 1 Dec 1999 14:42:21 GMT, Richard A Crane wrote in
> comp.os.os2.misc:
>
> >PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
> >upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
> >alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
> >y2k compliance?
>
> have a look at http://www.warpupdates.de/

Ooops !!!

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.warpupdates.de/
The following error was encountered:

    ERROR 205 -- DNS name lookup failure. Please contact your system
administrator.

It works about as well as some of the IBM links :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Nezumi (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 14:00:00
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:38:00
Subj: Re: WARP, James Bond and the Invisible WinCE Promotion

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On 1 Dec 1999, Glen D wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:32:57, josco <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > For those windows lovers who laughed at the OS/2 WARP promotion in a James
> > Bond Movie. See if you can find the WinCE logo in the newest moive.
> >
> > http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a
>
> I saw the film last night and don't recall seeing Win CE at all.  What
> a waste of $300,000 :-)

"Yeah Baby!"
MS is dropping the WinCE name ... maybe they'll call it "Mini-Windows."

And pssoibly they'll innovate some more and sponsor a bowl game....
http://www.accessarizona.com/partners/fiestabowl/news/99_news.html
:)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 17:21:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 20:38:00
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (ALDEL)

In <[e-mail]>, on 12/01/99
   at 08:28 PM, Martin Brown <[e-mail]> said:


>Thomas Billert wrote:

>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 1 Dec 1999 14:42:21 GMT, Richard A Crane wrote in
>> comp.os.os2.misc:
>>
>> >PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
>> >upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
>> >alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
>> >y2k compliance?
>>
>> have a look at http://www.warpupdates.de/

>Ooops !!!

>While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.warpupdates.de/ The
>following error was encountered:

>    ERROR 205 -- DNS name lookup failure. Please contact your system
>administrator.

>It works about as well as some of the IBM links :(

>Regards,
>Martin Brown

It works OK here!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] (ALDEL)
-----------------------------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 01-Dec-99 23:00:08
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Billert)

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 20:28:03 +0100, Martin Brown wrote in
comp.os.os2.misc:

>While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.warpupdates.de/
>The following error was encountered:
>
>    ERROR 205 -- DNS name lookup failure. Please contact your system
>administrator.
>

no idea, must be a problem on your side. It works fine here.

regards, Billy.
--
Thomas Billert using OS/2 Warp 4   *   OS/2-Usergroup Jena und Umgebung:
[e-mail]                  *     http://www.uni-jena.de/
http://www.billert.de              *              ~c5thbi/os2jena.html
PGP key available on my website

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 00:00:22
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: When will it be 100% done?

From: "Adrian Gschwend" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:54:31 -0600, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>After all, the Opera people DEMANDED that OS/2 users pay the $35 fee UP
>FRONT as a 'sign of loyalty'.  OS/2 users paid and are still waiting for
>a return on their little investment since they had to prove to Opera
>that they were worth it.

I don't know a single person who already payed the $35, so don't talk
bullshit here.

And our team started about three month ago so we are faster than every other
port.




---
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
[e-mail]
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OS/2 Netlabs (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 15:30:14
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Windows Powered (To the tune of She's Too Fat For me)

From: josco <[e-mail]>

Just a little song about windows.

http://milton.mse.jhu.edu:8001/research/folkindex/S07.htm
She's Too Fat For me
1.Parker, Chet. Hammered Dulcimer, Folkways FA 2381, LP (1966),
cut# 3b



Oh I dont want it
you can have it
it's too fat for me.
it's too fat for me.
it's too fat for me.


-- joseph

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Aaron Dimsdale wrote:

> Just a little song about Opera/2, which is OF COURSE coming RSN.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 15:47:15
  To: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: How do I install fixpack 11 ?

To: Rime Saad <[e-mail]>
From: josco <[e-mail]>

http://www.gt-online.com/~bri/fix.html
http://members.iquest.net/~dcasey/
(links above document how I came to this web page below)

http://www.os2voice.org/ez-reference/fixpak.html I followed the directions
for an install off my hard drive, not floppy disks which takes too long
while this went quickly.  It was easy. I installed FP11.

The fixpack files came from this ftp site.
ftp://service.software.ibm.com/ps/products/os2/fixes/v4warp/english-us/xr_m011/


My advice is to be sure to at least run chkdsk prior to the install to be
sure not to have any disk errors.  I have my system boot with the HPFS
automatically checking my drives.  It seems easier than booting off the
floppies and running chkdsk.  You can modify the CONFIG.SYS file line
where the cache is installed. You add '+' signs in front of all cached
disks i.e. +c+d+e

OS/2 Help will give you the correct symantics -- search help for "cache"
to see the exact syntax.  "Help cache"

After the system is okay and running you can edit and remove the forced
chkdsk if that slows down boot time.

-- joseph

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Rime Saad wrote:

> Hello
>
> How do I install fixpack 11 ?  I downloaded the fixpack from the IBM FTP
> site, and the file had the extention ".sh".  I do not know how to
> install such a file
>
> Thank you
>
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 18:43:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> I'm back!

Non sequitur.

> Miss me?

I wasn't aiming for you, Aaron.

> No? Balderdash.

I see you are still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  Have you at least cleaned that dirt off of your glasses yet?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 23:57:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: "Adrian Gschwend" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:55:45 -0500, David H. McCoy wrote:

>You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project Magic
>started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
>of the OS/2 version.

Well, we started about three month ago so we are AHEAD of each other team
compared to the time. Dream on guy


---
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
[e-mail]
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OS/2 Netlabs (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 23:55:11
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Odin Application Database

From: "Adrian Gschwend" <[e-mail]>

Some days ago the Odin Team at OS/2 Netlabs released the first public
alpha version of Odin since the code is open source.

For those of you who still don't know it, Odin and Odin32 is an
approach to get Win32 support in OS/2 (it is no emulator!). The
homepage of the project is located at http://www.netlabs.org/odin/

We are very proud to say that the project made great progress, a lot
more applications are running with Odin actually, especially slim
programs. A lot of Odin users reported applications, which are running
on OS/2 without problems, for example:

- Acrobat Distiller 3.01 (PDF-File generator)
- SmartDraw (Chart designing program)
- CDRLabel (CD labeling application, even printing works very well)
- WinHelp (Help system of Windows)
- Word 6.0 for Windows NT 3.51 (32bit edition)
- ... and more

One of the very promising applications is Lotus Notes R5, we are
already able to start the application, you can find a screenshot of it
at the Odin page (it's mentioned in the "News" section). As you may
know we also working on a port of the Opera webbrowser to OS/2. With
Odin32 we can actually compile the whole V4.0 Win32-Sourcecode without
significant changes in the code.

If you are interested in our progress, check the Odin application
database at http://www.netlabs.org/odin/MiscApplications.phtml
You are also welcome to add your application to the database!

For impatient users we have daily builds available, note that we don't
support any of the Odin versions actually because progress is changing
almost every day. We are not that much interested in bug reports
because of this reason.
But we still need more skilled developers, the more support we get the
faster we are! If you think that you can support our project, get more
information about how to join at the Odin page.

That's it for the moment, thanks for all the support so far!

Adrian Gschwend
and the whole Odin Team at OS/2 Netlabs



---
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
[e-mail]
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OS/2 Netlabs (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 00:03:05
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: "Adrian Gschwend" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:05:12 -0600, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
>here.

Well, I'm happy about it. Thanks a lot. BTW: Flamewars is what advocacy
groups are about.

>Even I pointed out, without fully realizing it, that applications make
>the computer.  What's the point of having something if you cannot use it
>to its full potential?  I won't go into examples since that would
>instantly betray what I have already said.  As if you'd have the
>capability to comprehend anyway.

Well, I cannot use Windoze because the OS is that bad and that much instable.
That's why I use OS/2 and I can run everything on OS/2 I want.

>If nothing else, I hope that only the previous two paragraphs will sink
>into your teensy little brains.

Hmm, little brains? Think about that nerd.




---
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
[e-mail]
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OS/2 Netlabs (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   01-Dec-99 18:10:13
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kelly Robinson wrote:
> >
> > I'll submit that I do have a nasty side and negative attitude.
> >
> > And one way or the other, regardless of opinion or attitude, I've now
> > realized something - and this applies to every other person in this
> > forum whether they are pro-OS/2 or against-OS/2 or affilliated with OS/2
> > such as Stardock or Opera.
> >
> > I no longer feel I have the amount of stupidity necessary to hang around
> > here.
>
> HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is the most
> entertaining post I have ever seen from you!  And briefly skimming the
> rest, I have no hesitation in nominating you for the
>
> "Longest Goodby to OS/2 from a Non-User"
>
> award.  Your goodbye posts have spanned months, if not years.  But now,
> I think your serious, depending on the outcome of the talks in Chicago,
> of course.  Congratulations.


As prize for his award, he can have his own personalized copy of
Question 32 from the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ:


===============================================================
32. I've subscribed to csma and now I want to leave. What should I do?

First, create a new thread. Crosspost to as many groups as you can think
of. Name it something like "Goodbye forever, CSMA, we had good times,
didn't we?" Now proceed to enumerate all the reasons you're leaving,
such as

       1) Nobody writes for csma anymore.
       2) Your company of 10,000 people switched over completely from
            csma to coma [comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy].
       3) You can't find your favorite game on csma.
       4) Your favorite programs run faster when you're reading coma
            than when you're reading csma.
       5) The guy who sleeps in the alley behind the pub you frequent
            said that the beleaguered csma was dying.
       6) The Wall Street Journal said that beleaguered csma is dying.
       7) Your three-year-old csma cost twice as much and was half as
            fast as a brand new coma.
       8) csma tech-support was unresponsive.
       9) You can get a coma in any seedy dive, but you have to go
            someplace special, like Sears, to get csma.
       10) coma has finally "caught up" to csma.

Having done all that, finish off the post by summarizing how all of
these points are relevant for each and every other poster to csma, and
why they're idiots for staying. Make your final goodbyes, then be sure
to come back at least two days (no more than two weeks) later and make a
lame excuse for returning.

This is the proper, FDA-approved way of leaving csma. Use it in good
health.
===============================================================

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 18:48:21
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course for
> > tholenbot.  Here's your context back:
>
> Taking pontification lessons from the pontiff again, Marty?

What alleged "pontiff", Eric?

> How ironic.

You are erroneously presupposing that I'm taking pontification lessons from
the
"pontiff".

> > > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > >
> > > How ironic

Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course for Eric
Bennett.  Here's your context back:
> > tholenbot wrote:
> > >
> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> >
> > How ironic.

> Still illogical,

You are erroneously presupposing that I was illogical before.

> just as the first time you posted it.

If this time is "just as" illogical as the last time I posted it then it is
obviously quite logical.

> Your repetition

What alleged "repetition"?

> does not improve the logical flaws in your posting, Marty.

One cannot improve what doesn't exist.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 18:52:29
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:44:33 -0500, tholenbot wrote:
>
> >In article <bhx04.5937$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
> ><[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:25:41 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:53:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Marty writes:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> word blatant.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
> >> >> >> >> >> >> example of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
> >> >> >> >> >> > blatant.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Illogically,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
> >> >> >> >> >I would
> >> >> >> >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
> >> >> >> >> >had not
> >> >> >> >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
> >> >> >> >> >Get over
> >> >> >> >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Typical invective, Marty.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Don't you know, Aaron?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >You should.  After all, you *are* Aaron.  I guess you're too busy
> >> >tending your
> >> >Balderdash garden to get to know yourself.
> >> >
> >> >> >> Are you a two-year-old?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Irrelevant.
> >> >>
> >> >> On the contrary, quite relevant.
> >> >
> >> >Typical pontification.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Incorrect.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills to
> >recognize that fact.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> >> >> >relevant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Typical pontification.  Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?  Why,
> >> >nowhere to be seen!
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Self-evident.

Balderdash, Aaron.

> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >> >> >> >> >> >> find embarassing:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
> >> >> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> >> >> >> >> >> > inappropriate
> >> >> >> >> >> > question?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
> >> >> >> >> >facilities.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
> >> >> >> >statement
> >> >> >> >above.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >See above.
> >> >>
> >> >> Note: No comment.
> >> >
> >> >No surprise there.  Too embarrassed, eh?
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> >> >> > Here you go:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> >> >> >> >> >> question,
> >> >> >> >> >> Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Self-evident.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Incorrect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect, as its lack of self-evidence is shown by clearly already.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
> >> >> >> >> >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's
> >> >> >> >> >painfully
> >> >> >> >> >obvious by now anyway.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No comment.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Note: no comment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm glad you pointed that out, Marty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Note:  Aaron is glad that I pointed that out.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm glad you pointed out that I'm glad you pointed that out.
> >> >
> >> >No surprise there.  You appear to be glad to be embarrassed.
> >>
> >> What I appear to be doing does not matter.
> >
> >What does not matter is irrelevant.  What you can prove is relevant.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> >> >> >> >> >> > embarassment.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
> >> >> >> >> >tried to
> >> >> >> >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> >> >> >> >> >didn't work.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >See above.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not at all, Aaron.
> >> >>
> >> >> Poppycock.
> >> >
> >> >Typical pontification.  No surprise there.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Balderdash, tholenbot.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> >> >> >> >> >> > The rest of us have.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part
> >> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Quite possible indeed.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Self-evident.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
> >> >> >Balderdash
> >> >> >garden.
> >> >>
> >> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >
> >On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, tholenbot?

Irrelevant.

> How predictable.

Not as predictable as your tending of your Balderdash garden.

> >> >> I have no Balderdash garden to tend.
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect, as you actively continue to tend your own Balderdash garden
> >> >in lieu
> >> >of a logical argument.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> >Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> >> I see you've snipped the evidence that you've snipped the evidence in
> >> the last message of yours. How convenient.
> >
> >Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Aaron?  How predictable.
>
> Balderdash.

I see you're still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
argument.  No surprise there.

> > I do not "approve" phrases.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

Unnecessary, Aaron.

> > -- Dave Tholen
>
> Irrelevant.

Incorrect.  Of course, it takes decent quote attribution skills to recognize
that fact.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 18:58:10
  To: All                                               01-Dec-99 21:37:12
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> word
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> alleged
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> example of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > word
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > blatant.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Illogically,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word
> > > > > > > > > >> >"blatant".
> > > > > > > > > >> >I
> > > > > > > > > >> >would
> > > > > > > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> > > > > > > > > >> >if
> > > > > > > > > >> >Mike
> > > > > > > > > >> >had
> > > > > > > > > >> >not
> > > > > > > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct
> > > > > > > > > >> >spelling.
> > > > > > > > > >> >Get
> > > > > > > > > >> >over
> > > > > > > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by
> > > > > > > > > >> >now.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don't you know, Aaron?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see you didn't answer the question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from the person who said:
> > > > EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > > > EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > >
> > > How typical that you would take my remarks out of context in an
> > > ineffective attempt to bolster your erroneous claims.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from the person who took my remarks out of context in
> > an
> > ineffective attempt to bolster his erroneous claims as evidenced by:
> > EB] M] EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > (note the dishonest removal of the second "EB] M] EB] Argument by
> > repetition,
> > Aaron?  Ineffective.")
> > EB] M] How ironic

Note: no response

> > > > > > > How predictable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Logic can be quite predictable.
> > > >
> > > > Note: no response
> > >
> > > Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.
> >
> > I failed to locate the response because you failed to post it.  That's
> > your
> > problem, not mine.

Note: no response

> > > Of course, that is to be expected of you.
> >
> > Logic is to be expected of me.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unnecessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > >
> > > > The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Your inability to grasp this concept is of no surprise.

Note: no response

> > > > > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can
> > > > > > > > prove
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > relevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > Typical pontification.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.

Note: no response

> > > > > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> > > > > that fact.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to
> > > > recognize
> > > > the self-evident nature of:
> > > > "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
> > > > relevant."
> > >
> > > Non sequitur.
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim?

Note: no response

> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > idiotically
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > question?
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading
> > > > > > > > > >> >comprehension
> > > > > > > > > >> >facilities.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension
> > > > > > > > > >problems in
> > > > > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > >statement
> > > > > > > > > >above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Balderdash, tholenbot.

Note: no response

> > > Of course, it takes decent evidence
> >
> > But no "decent evidence" was provided, tholenbot.

Note: no response

> > > comprehension skills to recognize that fact.
> >
> > You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "decent evidence".

Note: no response

> > > > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't you know?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
> >
> > I see you still haven't answered the question.  No surprise there.

Note: no response

> > > > > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise
> > > > > > there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?
> >
> > Note:  no response

Note: no response

> > > > > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
> > > > > claims,
> > > >
> > > > I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.
> > >
> > > Another erroneous claim.
> >
> > Another pontification.

Note: no response

> > > > > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
> > > >
> > > > Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
> > >
> > > How ironic,
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim?

Note: no response

> > > coming from someone who attempts to substitute many illogical things
> > > for a
> > > logical argument.
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that I attempt to substitute many
> > illogical
> > things for a logical argument.

Note: no response

> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about
> > > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> question,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical pontification.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> > >
> > > Don't you know whether I know, Marty?
> >
> > It's your pontification.  You should know.

Note: no response

> > > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > It is impossible to know the location of something which does not
> > > > exist.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.
> >
> > Non sequitur, given that said logical argument was not posted by you to
> > this
> > thread.

Note: no response

> > > > > > Why,
> > > > > > nowhere to be seen!
> > > > >
> > > > > I can see it.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
> > > > previously
> > > > obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.
> > >
> > > Illogical,
> >
> > Incorrect.

Note: no response

> > > given that I would not have been able to see it had it been obfuscated,
> >
> > Reading comprehension problems?  The smudge of dirt was the cause of the
> > obfuscation.  Hence all you could see was said smudge.

Note: no response

> > > and given that I was not wearing glasses.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.

Note: no response

> > > > > Comprehend context, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.
> > >
> > > Illogical.
> >
> > Balderdash, tholenbot.

Note: no response

> > > I see you have snipped the context
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such context to be
> > "snipped".

Note: no response

> > > in a vain attempt
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing the existence of "an attempt".

Note: no response

> > > to obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.
> >
> > What alleged "assertion"?

Note: no response

> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must
> > > > > > > > > >> >have
> > > > > > > > > >> >tried
> > > > > > > > > >> >to
> > > > > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad
> > > > > > > > > >> >it
> > > > > > > > > >> >didn't
> > > > > > > > > >> >work.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >See above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't
> > > > "answer
> > > > the
> > > > question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post
> > > > you've
> > > > failed
> > > > to "answer the question."
> > >
> > > "!!"?  How rich!
> >
> > No logical argument, eh?  No surprise there.

Note: no response

> > > > > > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my
> > > > > > > > > >> >> part
> > > > > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your
> > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > Balderdash
> > > > > > > > garden.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro
> > > > > > > (aka
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > Pott).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > >
> > > > On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.
> > >
> > > Why do you say that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden?
> >
> > I've pointed out all the relevant evidence in another thread, tholenbot.
> > Still
> > having reading comprehension problems?

Note: no response

> Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
> Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
> -Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

Is this all you have left to add to this discussion?  Too bad the above is not
a logical argument and you've unwittingly conceeded to my points.  It was
bound
to happen sooner or later, however.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 19:16:12
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Note Eric's continued irrelevant cross-posting.

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Note Eric's additional irrelevant cross-posting.
> >
> > Note: no response
>
> Typical

What's allegedly typical about it?

> Timbol-esque deletion.

Does Timbol typically leave all context intact and not remove any text when he
"deletes"?

> How predictable.

Logic is quite predictable and repeatable.

> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Note Eric's irrelevant cross-posting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical, as there is no such cross-posting to note.
> > > >
> > > > That is a lie.
> > >
> > > Typical invective.
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Marty?

You're erroneously presupposing that I was strolling down irrelevancy lane
before.

> > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty
> > > > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Marty writes:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of
> > > > > > > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >>> word blatant.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an
> > > > > > > > > >> >> alleged
> > > > > > > > > >> >> example of a "lie/game" on my part.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
> > > > > > > > > >> > word
> > > > > > > > > >> > blatant.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Illogically,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word
> > > > > > > > > >"blatant".
> > > > > > > > > >I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the
> > > > > > > > > >past)
> > > > > > > > > >if Mike had not corrected me.  I thanked him after using
> > > > > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > >correct spelling.  Get over it, moron.  A two-year-old
> > > > > > > > > >could
> > > > > > > > > >grasp the concept by now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Typical invective, Marty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Self-evident.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > >
> > > > Unnecessary, tholenbot.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> See what I mean?

See what I mean?

> > > > > > > > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> > > > > > > > > >> >> find embarassing:
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
> > > > > > > > > >> >> lie/game on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
> > > > > > > > > >> > inappropriate
> > > > > > > > > >> > question?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
> > > > > > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >The one which led me to question your reading
> > > > > > > > > >comprehension
> > > > > > > > > >facilities.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the statement above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't you know, Eric?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see that,
> > > >
> > > > You see what?
> > >
> > > The context that you removed, among other things.
> >
> > I can't see what hasn't happened, tholenbot, not even with dirty glasses.
>
> Non sequitur.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> > > Taking context removal lessons from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol
> > > again,
> > > Marty?
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol is
> > qualified to teach me about "context removal".
>
> Incorrect.

Illogical.  If you have not presupposed this, then why make the above
statement?

> > > > The smudge of dirt on your glasses?
> > >
> > > What alleged "glasses", Marty?
> >
> > Don't you know, tholenbot?
>
> No.

You should.  They're your glasses, after all.

> > > > > having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect the
> > > > > burden of
> > > > > proof.
> > > >
> > > > You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Then why make such a statement?
>
> Because you have demonstrated no basis for your claim.

You are erroneously presupposing that I have demonstrated no basis for my
claim, Eric.

> Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills to recognize that
> fact.

How ironic, coming from the person whose reading comprehension skills fell too
far short of the mark to comprehend the basis for my claim.

> > Note the lack of explanation.
>
> What alleged "lack"?

See what I mean?

> > Taking
> > pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
>
> What alleged "Tholen"?

Non sequitur.

> > > > > Ineffective.
> > > >
> > > > You are erroneously presupposing that I have no basis for my claim.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.  Taking
> > pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
>
> Taking argument by repetition lessons from Eric "Master of Repetition"
> Bennett again, Marty?  How ironic.

I see you failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.

> > > > > > > > > >> > Here you go:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
> > > > > > > > > >> question,
> > > > > > > > > >> Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Balderdash, Marty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he
> > > > > > thinks,
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > other choice do I have?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know?
> > > >
> > > > I see that, having no basis for your claim, you are trying to deflect
> > > > the
> > > > burden of proof.
> > >
> > > Illogical, given that I have demonstrated a basis for my claim.
> >
> > To whom, tholenbot?  You?
>
> More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.

I see you've still failed to answer the question.  No surprise there.  Here's
the question again for the reader's reference:

If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he thinks, what
other choice do I have?

> > > > Ineffective.  I also see that you have failed to answer
> > > > the question.  How hypocritical, considering you said:
> > > > EB] I see you didn't answer the question.
> > > > EB] I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> > >
> > > I have answered the question, Marty,
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> On the contrary, quite correct.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> > > therefore there is no hypocrisy.
> >
> > Not on my part anyway, but you should be concerned about yourself.
>
> Illogical.

Typical pontification.

> > > You simply failed to locate the answer.
> >
> > I cannot locate what doesn't exist, tholenbot.
>
> Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

> > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an
> > > > > > > > > >> >>>> alleged
> > > > > > > > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
> > > > > > > > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.
> > > > > > > > > >Hence my
> > > > > > > > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.
> > > > > > > > > >It's
> > > > > > > > > >painfully
> > > > > > > > > >obvious by now anyway.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No comment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Note: no comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > games".
> > > > >
> > > > > What allegedly "infantile" game do I allegedly "enjoy"?
> > > >
> > > > It's your infantile game, Eric.  Don't you know?
> > >
> > > Illogical.
> >
> > What's allegedy "illogical" about it, tholenbot?
>
> I have no infantile game.

On what basis do you make this erroneous claim?

> > > > > > > > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
> > > > > > > > > >> > embarassment.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must
> > > > > > > > > >have
> > > > > > > > > >tried
> > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
> > > > > > > > > >didn't
> > > > > > > > > >work.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?
> > > > >
> > > > > Taking reading comprehension lessons from Aaron Dimsdale again,
> > > > > Marty?
> > > >
> > > > You are erroneously presupposing that Aaron Dimsdale is qualified to
> > > > teach me about reading comprehension, tholenbot.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Balderdash, tholenbot.
>
> Poppycock.

Irrelevant.  I see you have still failed to "see above".  No surprise there.

> > > Aaron is not qualified, but that does not mean you are not
> > > taking lessons from him.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Balderdash.

Giving Aaron a hand in his Balderdash garden, Eric?

> > > > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> Note: no logical response.

Incorrect.

> > > > > > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your stroll down irrelevancy lane is predictable, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > You are erroneously presupposing that I have strolled down
> > > > "irrelevancy
> > > > lane", Eric.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
>
> Note: no logical response.

Note the following text was dishonestly removed by Eric "Remove That Which
Embarrasses Me" Bennett:
> No tholenbot, I cannot see the piece of dirt on your glasses obfuscating
> your vision.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 19:17:08
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: You've asked for this.  :-)

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, bastard advocate irritant
> > > in general <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, we just don't give a damn about Linux users which is why we mostly
> > > > avoid the windows.advocacy groups.
> > >
> > > Illogical.
> >
> > Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
>
> What alleged "Tholen"?

Still having reading comprehension problems, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 19:29:25
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451514

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a response to
any articles posted to or about him.  As usual, he's trying to blame me for
something he caused.  If we're lucky and I call him on the irrelevant
cross-posting, he may even pull the old "aim at the base of the flames"
argument out from retirement.  And one can only wonder whether his exchanges
with Eric Bennett are indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been
playing on me.  Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another thread in
COOA and consists of several thousand lines):

> 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough, he continued
> 1> his infantile digest game.  He also seems to be admitting again
> 1> (unwittingly, as usual) that his own behavior is infantile, as he
> 1> has called my behavior infantile when I have emulated him.  This
> 1> shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  Of more note, however, is
> 1> that he has decided once again to spread his infantile digest game
> 1> across to the Mac newsgroup, as if they hadn't had enough of (what
> 1> Dave refers to himself as) Dave's "baby-talk tripe".

> 1> How embarrassing, coming from the inept fool whose "digest" presently
> 1> adds nothing to two (!!) distinct newsgroups.

> 1> Poor ignorant Dave.  He still doesn't realize that the only times I
> 1> have responded with that phrase were to his baseless accusations of
> 1> playing an infantile game.  It was done to show Dave's usual brand
> 1> of hypocrisy, seeing as how he originated the quote in his own
> 1> hypocritical infantile game with Eric Bennett.

> 1> Actually quite substantiated, as Tholen failed to realize how
> 1> dropping a pantload could become a cleaner's problem.

> 1> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say Dave said he was.

> 1> Dave was the one that made the claim that they aren't.  Where is his
> 1> proof?  Why, nowhere to be seen!  I never claimed that they were,
> 1> nor that I wanted to believe that they were.

> 1> Interesting to whom?  CSMA?  Dubious.

> 1> As is his right to do so.  That doesn't make him correct.

> 1> Actually, he chooses to remain logical so he can avoid supporting
> 1> Dave's position.

[Note:  Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that were not
intended for him in this infantile "digest".  Just further evidence of his
nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further evidence were needed)]

> 2> What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> 2> Don't you know, tholenbot?
> 3> There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
> 3> What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?
> 3> Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
> 3> Don't you know, tholenbot?
> 4> I can't see what hasn't happened, tholenbot, not even with dirty
> 4> glasses.
> 4> Don't you know, tholenbot?
> 4> Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.
> 4> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
> 4> Then why make such a statement?  Note the lack of explanation.
> 4> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
> 4> To whom, tholenbot?  You?
> 4> I cannot locate what doesn't exist, tholenbot.
> 4> What's allegedy "illogical" about it, tholenbot?
> 4> Balderdash, tholenbot.
> 4> No tholenbot, I cannot see the piece of dirt on your glasses
> 4> obfuscating your vision.
> 5> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         02-Dec-99 01:11:07
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic, central
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major soft spot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>....and again.

>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>> ....and again.

>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>> ....and again.

>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> ....and again.

Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

The same response again for the reader's reference:

> According to your statement, under what conditions
> does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
> functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

Unnecessary, Lucien, again.  I will restore my two simple tests,
however, given that you've never taken them.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

Note again the pat "refusal" to take the two simple tests:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.
]
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
]
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
]
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
]
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
]
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
]
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                01-Dec-99 20:59:13
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Thomas Billert) said:

>>PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
>>upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
>>alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
>>y2k compliance?

>have a look at http://www.warpupdates.de/

What's wrong with this picture?  Netscape tells me it can't find such a
URL.

Jim L
Remove XX from address to Email
Crooks and kooks will get guns regardless of laws.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: roger@.                                           02-Dec-99 01:53:01
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Roger <roger@.>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:07:02 -0500, someone claiming to be Tim Adams
wrote:

>It is my understanding that the copy they bought was a _pirated_ and
>modified version of Seattle Computer's DOS.

Your understanding is seriously flawed.

>Both versions were licensed by
>IBM for release with the first PC. MS's version took control because IBM
>priced them so differently - one for ~$50 and the other for ~$150.
>They licensed both because they (IBM) was concerned because of rumors they
>had heard of MS's version being stolen AND that Seattle Computer was about
>to sue MS for doing the stealing. In their licensing deal with Seattle
>Computer, Gary Kildahl (bad spelling on the name) told IBM to go ahead, he
>wouldn't sue but beat them (MS) with a better product. IBM then screwed
>him with the price.

You have mixed up CP/M, QDOS, Tim Patterson, Gary Kildall and more
than a bit of whole cloth here.

Do try not to make yourself look so foolish next time?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                01-Dec-99 21:14:22
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: [e-mail] (Tim Adams)

In article <[e-mail]>, Roger <roger@.>
wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:07:02 -0500, someone claiming to be Tim Adams
> wrote:
>
> >It is my understanding that the copy they bought was a _pirated_ and
> >modified version of Seattle Computer's DOS.
>
> Your understanding is seriously flawed.
>
> >Both versions were licensed by
> >IBM for release with the first PC. MS's version took control because IBM
> >priced them so differently - one for ~$50 and the other for ~$150.
> >They licensed both because they (IBM) was concerned because of rumors they
> >had heard of MS's version being stolen AND that Seattle Computer was about
> >to sue MS for doing the stealing. In their licensing deal with Seattle
> >Computer, Gary Kildahl (bad spelling on the name) told IBM to go ahead, he
> >wouldn't sue but beat them (MS) with a better product. IBM then screwed
> >him with the price.
>
> You have mixed up CP/M, QDOS, Tim Patterson, Gary Kildall and more
> than a bit of whole cloth here.
>
> Do try not to make yourself look so foolish next time?

So why don't you enlighten the world with your understanding of the
beginnings of DOS for the IBM pc? Mine came from people at IBM, interviews
with people that talked with Gary Kildall, an historical run down on the
pbs show Computer chronicles, and a couple magazine articles.

--
Tim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEA Design (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 21:46:28
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:27:29
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course
> > > for
> > > tholenbot.  Here's your context back:
> >
> > Taking pontification lessons from the pontiff again, Marty?
>
> What alleged "pontiff", Eric?

More evidence of your lack of decent pontiff recognition skills.

> > How ironic.
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I'm taking pontification lessons
> from the
> "pontiff".

You are incorrectly presupposing that I made an erroneous presupposition.

> > > > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic
>
> Note the dishonest removal of context.

What alleged "dishonest removed of context"?

> > Still illogical,
>
> You are erroneously presupposing that I was illogical before.

Balderdash.

> > just as the first time you posted it.
>
> If this time is "just as" illogical as the last time I posted it then it
> is
> obviously quite logical.

Incorrect.

> > Your repetition
>
> What alleged "repetition"?

Having trouble comprehending your own writing, Marty?

> > does not improve the logical flaws in your posting, Marty.
>
> One cannot improve what doesn't exist

Evidence, please..

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            01-Dec-99 22:37:13
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>:>: In article <[e-mail]>,
>:>: [e-mail] says...
>:>:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
>:>:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
>:>:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
>:>:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
>:>:>
>:>:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
>:>:>version.
>:>:>
>:>
>:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
>:>
>:>How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
>:>besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
>:>developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
>:>is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
>:>is still coming along nicely.
>:>
>:>I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.
>:>
>
>: You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project Magic

>: started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
>: of the OS/2 version.
>
>: You guys have amazing revisionist abilities.
>
>And you have a not so amazing ability to duck the question.  Of course,
>when you are flat out wrong, what else can you do?  Can you show me how
>the OS/2 version had a 2 year head start an any other platform for opera???
>
>No you can't, in fact the OS/2 version got scrapped once because of the
>developement team, and got restarted in 1999.  Your comments make even
>less sense when you consider they were talking about the version 4
>browser.  How could OS/2 have a two year head start on Windows for the
>version 4 browser when it's a port???  They weren't even working on
>version 4 two years ago!!!
>
>-Jason
>

You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.

Stop being silly.

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 22:57:00
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> > >
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course
> > > > for
> > > > tholenbot.  Here's your context back:
> > >
> > > Taking pontification lessons from the pontiff again, Marty?
> >
> > What alleged "pontiff", Eric?
>
> More evidence

You are erronesouly presupposing that there was previous evidence.

> of your lack of decent pontiff recognition skills.

One can't recognize that which doesn't exist, Eric.

> > > How ironic.
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that I'm taking pontification lessons
> > from the "pontiff".
>
> You are incorrectly presupposing that I made an erroneous presupposition.

Incorrect.

> > > > > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic
> >
> > Note the dishonest removal of context.
>
> What alleged "dishonest removed of context"?

Note again the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course for
Eric
Bennett.  Here's your context back:
> > tholenbot wrote:
> > >
> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
> >
> > How ironic.

> > > Still illogical,
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that I was illogical before.
>
> Balderdash.

If you were not presupposing that I was illogical before, then why would you
say:
EB] Still illogical

That would be illogical.

> > > just as the first time you posted it.
> >
> > If this time is "just as" illogical as the last time I posted it then it
> > is obviously quite logical.
>
> Incorrect.

Typical pontification from Eric "King of All Pontificators" Bennett.

> > > Your repetition
> >
> > What alleged "repetition"?
>
> Having trouble comprehending your own writing, Marty?

I'm not the one making erroneous presuppositions, Eric.

> > > does not improve the logical flaws in your posting, Marty.
> >
> > One cannot improve what doesn't exist
>
> Evidence, please..

Self-evident.  That you request evidence for such a statement is just further
evidence that you are playing your own "infantile game".  Or are you really
that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              01-Dec-99 16:56:25
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: [e-mail] (Jerry Lapham)

In <HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-SkUDF7V0CEPr@localhost>, on 12/01/99
   at 02:42 PM, [e-mail] (Richard A Crane) said:

> Most recently 2x telephone calls and 1x email enquiring
> about WSeB unreturned and unacknowledged - and all I want to know is the
> AUS$ price of it (WSeB's existence (and of
> course price) was not even on the IBM Australia website as  an IBM
> product!  Which leads me to the sad conclusion that  they aren't even
> interested in OS/2 for anybody

IBM is only supporting OS/2 to the extent that some of their large
customers demand it.  If there aren't any such large customers in
Australia, there's no reason to provide *any* support there.

    -Jerry
--
============================================================
Jerry Lapham, Monroe, OH
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Written Wednesday, December 01, 1999 - 04:56 PM (EST)
============================================================
MR/2 Ice tag:  Deja Boo:  I've seen that ghost before.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                02-Dec-99 03:55:29
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:57:25, [e-mail] (Byron
Desnoyers Winmill) wrote:

ΩJohn Hong ([e-mail]) wrote:
Ω: [e-mail] wrote:
█
Ω: : Good job! Any plans for a non-MDI version? (Can't stand MDI
Ω: : personally...)
█
Ω:     What's MDI?
█
ΩMultiple Document Interface (or something like that).  It is the type of
Ωinterface where you have multiple document windows all sitting inside the
Ωmain program windows (something like wordperfect or word).  This type of
Ωinterface is okay if you only have one document open at one time, or like
Ωhaving your document windows tiled.  Otherwise, MDI tends to be a pain!
█

The thing is, it would be OK if there was a good key combo to scroll
through the full screen docs you have open.  Unfortunately, there
usually isn't one.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 03:56:06
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:54:35 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>> How ironic,
>
>What is "ironic" about it, Marty?
>
>> coming from the person who took my remarks out of context in
>> an
>> ineffective attempt to bolster his erroneous claims
>
>What alleged person did this, Marty?
>
>> > > > > > How predictable.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Logic can be quite predictable.
>> > >
>> > > Note: no response
>> >
>> > Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.
>>
>> I failed to locate the response because you failed to post it.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>> That's
>> your
>> problem, not mine.
>
>Illogical.  That problem does not exist.
>
>> > Of course, that is to be expected of you.
>>
>> Logic is to be expected of me.
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>> > > > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Irrelevant.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Evidence, please.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Unnecessary.
>> > > >
>> > > > Evidence, please.
>> > >
>> > > The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> Your inability to grasp this concept is of no surprise.
>
>Illogical.
>
>> > > > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can
>> > > > > > > prove
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > relevant.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Self-evident.
>> > > >
>> > > > Incorrect.
>> > >
>> > > Typical pontification.
>> >
>> > See what I mean?
>>
>> See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.
>
>Irrelevant, given that I have made no excuses.
>
>> > > > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
>> > > > that fact.
>> > >
>> > > How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to
>> > > recognize
>> > > the self-evident nature of:
>> > > "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
>> > > relevant."
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.
>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike)
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> on
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > idiotically
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > question?
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question,
>> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading
>> > > > > > > > >> >comprehension
>> > > > > > > > >> >facilities.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension
>> > > > > > > > >problems in
>> > > > > > > > >the
>> > > > > > > > >statement
>> > > > > > > > >above.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > See above.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
>> > > >
>> > > > See above.
>> > >
>> > > There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> Balderdash, tholenbot.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>> > Of course, it takes decent evidence
>>
>> But no "decent evidence" was provided, tholenbot.
>
>More evidence of your lack of evidence recognition skills.
>
>> > comprehension skills to recognize that fact.
>>
>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "decent evidence".
>
>Even more evidence of your lack of evidence recognition skills.
>
>> > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
>> > >
>> > > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
>> >
>> > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
>>
>> I see you still haven't answered the question.  No surprise there.
>
>What alleged question?
>
>> > > > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
>> > > > claims,
>> > >
>> > > I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.
>> >
>> > Another erroneous claim.
>>
>> Another pontification.
>
>Impossible.
>
>> > > > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
>> > >
>> > > Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
>> >
>> > How ironic,
>>
>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>On the basis of your hypocrisy.
>
>> > coming from someone who attempts to substitute many illogical things
>> > for a
>> > logical argument.
>>
>> You are erroneously presupposing that I attempt to substitute many
>> illogical
>> things for a logical argument.
>
>My supposition was not erroneous, Marty.
>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about
>> > > > > > > > >> >> that
>> > > > > > > > >> >> question,
>> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On the contrary.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Typical pontification.
>> > > >
>> > > > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
>> > >
>> > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
>> >
>> > Don't you know whether I know, Marty?
>>
>> It's your pontification.  You should know.
>
>Illogical, given that I see no basis for labeling my remarks as
>"pontification".
>
>> > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't you know, Marty?
>> > >
>> > > It is impossible to know the location of something which does not
>> > > exist.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.
>>
>> Non sequitur, given that said logical argument was not posted by you to
>> this
>> thread.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>> > > > > Why,
>> > > > > nowhere to be seen!
>> > > >
>> > > > I can see it.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
>> > > previously
>> > > obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.
>> >
>> > Illogical,
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Truth by assertion again?
>
>> > given that I would not have been able to see it had it been obfuscated,
>>
>> Reading comprehension problems?  The smudge of dirt was the cause of the
>> obfuscation.  Hence all you could see was said smudge.
>
>What alleged "dirt"?
>
>> > and given that I was not wearing glasses.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>What is this, "The Little Engine That Could"?
>
>> > > > Comprehend context, Marty.
>> > >
>> > > Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.
>> >
>> > Illogical.
>>
>> Balderdash, tholenbot.
>
>See what I mean?
>
>> > I see you have snipped the context
>>
>> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such context to be
>> "snipped".
>
>Incorrect.
>
>> > in a vain attempt
>>
>> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of "an attempt".
>
>Incorrect.
>
>> > to obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.
>>
>> What alleged "assertion"?
>
>Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must
>> > > > > > > > >> >have
>> > > > > > > > >> >tried
>> > > > > > > > >> >to
>> > > > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad
>> > > > > > > > >> >it
>> > > > > > > > >> >didn't
>> > > > > > > > >> >work.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >See above.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
>> > > >
>> > > > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
>> > >
>> > > How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't
>> > > "answer
>> > > the
>> > > question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post
>> > > you've
>> > > failed
>> > > to "answer the question."
>> >
>> > "!!"?  How rich!
>>
>> No logical argument, eh?  No surprise there.
>
>Illogical, given that I am still waiting for you to answer the question.
>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my
>> > > > > > > > >> >> part
>> > > > > > > > >> >> for
>> > > > > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your
>> > > > > > > own
>> > > > > > > Balderdash
>> > > > > > > garden.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro
>> > > > > > (aka
>> > > > > > Chris
>> > > > > > Pott).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
>> > > >
>> > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
>> > >
>> > > On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.
>> >
>> > Why do you say that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden?
>>
>> I've pointed out all the relevant evidence in another thread, tholenbot.
>> Still
>> having reading comprehension problems?
>
>Illogical.  Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
>-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

Just to clear something up, I own not a single Balderdash garden,
Marty. It's Pott's garden, and it's the only Balderdash garden that
exists at this point. Of course, Marty, you wouldn't know that, because
you haven't been with these threads back in the days of the Bennett v.
Pott and Tholen v. Pott ">>>>>Balderdash. >>>>Balderdash.
>>>Balderdash.>>Balderdash. >Balderdash." posts.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               01-Dec-99 23:24:21
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Apparently Aaron was too busy tending his Balderdash garden to respond to this
post and instead just left a few quick pontifications at the end of it.

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
[previously posted materials]

> Just to clear something up,

Have you finally cleaned that dirt off of your glasses, Aaron?

> I own not a single Balderdash garden, Marty.

Typical pontification.  So much for "clearing something up".

> It's Pott's garden,

Typical pontification.  So much for "clearing something up".

> and it's the only Balderdash garden that exists at this point.

Typical pontification.  So much for "clearing something up".

> Of course, Marty, you wouldn't know that,

Why would I want to know something which isn't true?

> because you haven't been with these threads back in the days of the
> Bennett v. Pott and Tholen v. Pott ">>>>>Balderdash. >>>>Balderdash.
> >>>Balderdash.>>Balderdash. >Balderdash." posts.

Typical pontification.  So much for "clearing something up".  On what basis do
you make this claim?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 04:09:24
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:56:53 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>> > >
>> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:56 -0500, Marty wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> Marty writes:
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the
>> > > > > >> >> >>> word
>> > > > > >> >> >>> blatant.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged
>> > > > > >> >> >> example of
>> > > > > >> >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
>> > > > > >> >> > blatant.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> Illogically,
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".
>> > > > > >> >I
>> > > > > >> >would
>> > > > > >> >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike
>> > > > > >> >had
>> > > > > >> >not
>> > > > > >> >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
>> > > > > >> >Get
>> > > > > >> >over
>> > > > > >> >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Typical invective, Marty.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What alleged two-year-old, Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't you know, Aaron?
>> > >
>> > > I see you didn't answer the question.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> Truth by proclamation again, Marty?  Predictable, but ineffective.
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who said:
>EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>EB] Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.

Illogical, because it was you who twice said "Argument by repitition,
Aaron? Ineffective." in the same post, not Eric.

>> > > How predictable.
>> >
>> > Logic can be quite predictable.
>
>Note: no response

Good thinking, Watson.

>> > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
>> > > >
>> > > > Irrelevant.
>> > >
>> > > Evidence, please.
>> >
>> > Unnecessary.
>>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.

Incorrect.

>> > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
>> > > >
>> > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
>> > > > relevant.
>> > >
>> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >
>> > Self-evident.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Typical pontification.

Balderdash, Marty.

>> Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
>> that fact.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills" to recognize
>the self-evident nature of:
>"What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove is
relevant."

Prove it, if you think you can.

>> > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
>> > > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game
>> > > > > >> >> >> on
>> > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically
>> > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
>> > > > > >> >> > question?
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
>> > > > > >> >facilities.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
>> > > > > >statement
>> > > > > >above.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > > See above.
>> > >
>> > > Typical circular reasoning.
>> >
>> > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
>>
>> See above.
>
>There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.

Incorrect.

>> > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>> >
>> > Don't you know?
>>
>> I see you failed to answer the question.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.

How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.

>> > > Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >
>> > I see you have failed to examine the evidence.  No surprise there.
>>
>> Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
>What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?

Don't you know, Marty?

>> You have failed to produce any evidence to support your erroneous
>> claims,
>
>I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous claims.

An obvious lie.

>> so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
>
>Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.

How ironic, coming from someone who regularly substitutes convenience
for logical arguments.

>> > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that
>> > > > > >> >> question,
>> > > > > >> >> Marty?
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Self-evident.
>> > > >
>> > > > Incorrect.
>> > >
>> > > On the contrary.
>> >
>> > Typical pontification.
>>
>> What is "typical" about it, Marty?
>
>Don't you know, tholenbot?

How ironic, coming from someone who doesn't know.

>> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>>
>> Don't you know, Marty?
>
>It is impossible to know the location of something which does not exist.

How ironic, coming from Marty.

>> > Why,
>> > nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> I can see it.
>
>Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had previously
>obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.

Last I checked, tholenbot does not wear glasses. I wear glasses. I am
the one who said perhaps my glasses are dirty, and after cleaning the
above-mentioned glasses, I saw nothing different in your posts.

>> Comprehend context, Marty.
>
>Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.

That's because you snipped it, Marty.

>> > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your
>> > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have
>> > > > > >> >tried
>> > > > > >> >to
>> > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it
>> > > > > >> >didn't
>> > > > > >> >work.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >See above.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > > Not at all, Aaron.
>> > >
>> > > On what basis do you make this claim?
>> >
>> > Don't you know, tholenbot?
>>
>> I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
>
>How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't "answer the
>question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post you've failed
>to "answer the question."

How ironic, coming from someone who STILL hasn't answered my question,
yet who claims that the answer is there.

>> > > > > >> >> > The rest of us have.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part
>> > > > > >> >> for
>> > > > > >> >> anyone to realize, Marty.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >Quite possible indeed.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On the contrary, Marty, quite impossible.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Self-evident.
>> > > >
>> > > > Balderdash, Aaron.  I see you are still actively tending your own
>> > > > Balderdash
>> > > > garden.
>> > >
>> > > Illogical, as the balderdash garden belongs to TholenBot Pro (aka Chris
>> > > Pott).
>> >
>> > Illogical, as more than one Balderdash garden can exist.
>>
>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>On the basis that Aaron tends his own Balderdash garden.

Prove it, if you think you can.

----------------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 04:16:24
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:49:51 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Note Eric's irrelevant

Prove it, if you think you can.

>cross-posting.

Using sentence fragments again, Marty?

>Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):

Prove it, if you think you can.

>>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:16:05 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Dave Tholen wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Marty writes:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
>> > > >> >>> blatant.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example
>> > > >> >> of
>> > > >> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
>> > > >> > blatant.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Illogically,
>> > > >
>> > > >Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I
>> > > >would
>> > > >have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had not
>> > > >corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get
>> > > >over
>> > > >it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>> > >
>> > > Typical invective, Marty.
>> >
>> > Incorrect, as it was an accurate description.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>Self-evident.

Incorrect.

>> > > >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> > > >> >> find embarassing:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>> > > >> >> M] Dave's part.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>> > > >> > question?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > >The one which led me to question your reading comprehension
>> > > >facilities.
>> > >
>> > > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> >
>> > Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension problems in the
>> > statement
>> > above.
>>
>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>Don't you know, Eric?

I see you've failed to answer the question. How predictable.

>> > > >> > Here you go:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
>> > > >> Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>> > >
>> > > Balderdash, Marty.
>> >
>> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>>
>> What he thinks is not relevant, Marty.
>
>If he fails to provide evidence and instead writes about what he thinks, what
>other choice do I have?

Try "Balderdash," Marty.

>> > > >> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged
>> > > >> >>>> "lie/game" any
>> > > >> >>>> better than you, Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > >The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
>> > > >commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's painfully
>> > > >obvious by now anyway.
>> > >
>> > > No comment.
>> >
>> > Note: no comment.
>>
>> Enjoying your infantile little game, Marty?
>
>How ironic, coming from someone enjoying his own "infantile little games".

How ironic, coming from an employee of the Infantile Little Games Rules
Committee.

>> > > >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> > > >
>> > > >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
>> > > >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't
>> > > >work.
>> > >
>> > > What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>> Typical circular reasoning.
>
>What's allegedly typical about it, Eric?

Don't you know, Marty?

>> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
>Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?

Bennett does not wear glasses.

>> Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>Incorrect.

Balderdash.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 04:19:12
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Dimsdale Digest Part Deux

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

Please note that this is not Part 2 of the Dimsdale Digest. You
wouldn't know that, of course, because the many Dimsdale Digests were,
all but one, before you ever joined these threads.

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:35:42 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> Well, it seems that Malloy is at it again. Nuff said.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who is "at it again."  Nuff said.

Prove it, if you think you can.

How ironic, coming from someone who is at it again.

>> 1> Below, a summary of everything useful Tholen's ever uttered on
>> 1> uselessnet, his job:
>>
>> What alleged uselessnet, Joe?
>
>Don't you know, Aaron?

If I knew, I would not have asked, Marty.

>> 1> [Where are they?  Why, nowhere to be seen!]
>>
>> I can't find your logical arguments either, Joe.
>
>Guess your glasses are dirty again.  How convenient.

I cleaned them before posting my reply to Joe, Marty.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 23:26:29
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <Qom14.7666$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >
> >Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?
>
> Bennett does not wear glasses.

Incorrect.  He does wear glasses.  However, he was wearing contact
lenses when he replied to Marty's post.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 04:30:08
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:57:01 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>> > >
>> > > In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Note the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course
>> > > > for
>> > > > tholenbot.  Here's your context back:
>> > >
>> > > Taking pontification lessons from the pontiff again, Marty?
>> >
>> > What alleged "pontiff", Eric?
>>
>> More evidence
>
>You are erronesouly presupposing that there was previous evidence.

His supposition was not "erronesoul," Marty. Still can't spell above
kindergarten level?

>> of your lack of decent pontiff recognition skills.
>
>One can't recognize that which doesn't exist, Eric.

Irrelevant, because the topic is your inability to recognize the
existant pontiffs.

>> > > How ironic.
>> >
>> > You are erroneously presupposing that I'm taking pontification lessons
>> > from the "pontiff".
>>
>> You are incorrectly presupposing that I made an erroneous presupposition.
>
>Incorrect.

Incorrect.

>> > > > > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > How ironic
>> >
>> > Note the dishonest removal of context.
>>
>> What alleged "dishonest removed of context"?
>
>Note again the dishonest removal of context.  This is par for the course for
>Eric
>Bennett.  Here's your context back:

Prove it, if you think you can.

>> > tholenbot wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>> > > Argument by repetition, Aaron?  Ineffective.
>> >
>> > How ironic.
>
>> > > Still illogical,
>> >
>> > You are erroneously presupposing that I was illogical before.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
>If you were not presupposing that I was illogical before, then why would you
>say:
>EB] Still illogical
>
>That would be illogical.

Balderdash, Marty.

>> > > just as the first time you posted it.
>> >
>> > If this time is "just as" illogical as the last time I posted it then it
>> > is obviously quite logical.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Typical pontification

What alleged pontification, Marty?

>from Eric "King of All Pontificators"

How ironic, coming from Marty "Monarch of Pontification" Amodeo.

>Bennett.

Using sentence fragments again, Marty?

>> > > Your repetition
>> >
>> > What alleged "repetition"?
>>
>> Having trouble comprehending your own writing, Marty?
>
>I'm not the one making erroneous presuppositions, Eric.

Balderdash, Marty.

>> > > does not improve the logical flaws in your posting, Marty.
>> >
>> > One cannot improve what doesn't exist
>>
>> Evidence, please..
>
>Self-evident.  That you request evidence for such a statement is just further
>evidence that you are playing your own "infantile game".  Or are you really
>that idiotic?

How ironic, coming from one of the rulebook writers employed by the
Infantile Little Games Rules Committee.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 23:36:25
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <x5m14.7602$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:54:35 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> >In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> How ironic,
> >
> >What is "ironic" about it, Marty?
> >
> >> coming from the person who took my remarks out of context in
> >> an
> >> ineffective attempt to bolster his erroneous claims
> >
> >What alleged person did this, Marty?

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > > How predictable.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Logic can be quite predictable.
> >> > >
> >> > > Note: no response
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect.  You simply failed to locate the response.
> >>
> >> I failed to locate the response because you failed to post it.
> >
> >Incorrect.

Note: no response.

> >> That's
> >> your
> >> problem, not mine.
> >
> >Illogical.  That problem does not exist.

Note: no response.

> >> > Of course, that is to be expected of you.
> >>
> >> Logic is to be expected of me.
> >
> >Non sequitur.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > > > > Are you a two-year-old?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Irrelevant.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Evidence, please.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Unnecessary.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Evidence, please.
> >> > >
> >> > > The lack of necessity for evidence is obvious.
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Your inability to grasp this concept is of no surprise.
> >
> >Illogical.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > > > > Perhaps this explains your knowledge in such areas.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > What this "perhaps explains" is irrelevant.  What you can
> >> > > > > > > prove
> >> > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > relevant.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Self-evident.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Incorrect.
> >> > >
> >> > > Typical pontification.
> >> >
> >> > See what I mean?
> >>
> >> See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.
> >
> >Irrelevant, given that I have made no excuses.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > Of course, it takes decent investigative skills to recognize
> >> > > > that fact.
> >> > >
> >> > > How ironic, coming from someone who lacks "investigative skills"
> >> > > to
> >> > > recognize
> >> > > the self-evident nature of:
> >> > > "What this 'perhaps explains' is irrelevant.  What you can prove
> >> > > is
> >> > > relevant."
> >> >
> >> > Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> >See what I mean?  Your dirty glasses are hardly an appropriate excuse.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> find embarassing:
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Mike)
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> lie/game
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> on
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> M] Dave's part.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > While you're at it, why not restore your
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > idiotically
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > inappropriate
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > question?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate"
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> question,
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >The one which led me to question your reading
> >> > > > > > > > >> >comprehension
> >> > > > > > > > >> >facilities.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >Yes.  I am describing Dave's reading comprehension
> >> > > > > > > > >problems in
> >> > > > > > > > >the
> >> > > > > > > > >statement
> >> > > > > > > > >above.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > See above.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Typical circular reasoning.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > See above.
> >> > >
> >> > > There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, tholenbot.
> >
> >Incorrect.

Note: no response.

> >> > Of course, it takes decent evidence
> >>
> >> But no "decent evidence" was provided, tholenbot.
> >
> >More evidence of your lack of evidence recognition skills.

Note: no response.

> >> > comprehension skills to recognize that fact.
> >>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "decent evidence".
> >
> >Even more evidence of your lack of evidence recognition skills.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> >> > >
> >> > > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
> >> >
> >> > How ironic, coming from someone who didn't answer the question.
> >>
> >> I see you still haven't answered the question.  No surprise there.
> >
> >What alleged question?

Note: no response.

> >> > > > You have failed to produce any evidence to support your
> >> > > > erroneous
> >> > > > claims,
> >> > >
> >> > > I can't support what doesn't exist.  I have made no erroneous
> >> > > claims.
> >> >
> >> > Another erroneous claim.
> >>
> >> Another pontification.
> >
> >Impossible.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > so it is only logical that I have not examined it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
> >> >
> >> > How ironic,
> >>
> >> On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> >On the basis of your hypocrisy.

Note: no response.

> >> > coming from someone who attempts to substitute many illogical things
> >> > for a
> >> > logical argument.
> >>
> >> You are erroneously presupposing that I attempt to substitute many
> >> illogical
> >> things for a logical argument.
> >
> >My supposition was not erroneous, Marty.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > Here you go:
> >> > > > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> that
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> question,
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> Marty?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Balderdash, Marty.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Self-evident.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Incorrect.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On the contrary.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Typical pontification.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What is "typical" about it, Marty?
> >> > >
> >> > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> >> >
> >> > Don't you know whether I know, Marty?
> >>
> >> It's your pontification.  You should know.
> >
> >Illogical, given that I see no basis for labeling my remarks as
> >"pontification".

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Don't you know, Marty?
> >> > >
> >> > > It is impossible to know the location of something which does not
> >> > > exist.
> >> >
> >> > Irrelevant, given that my logical argument exists.
> >>
> >> Non sequitur, given that said logical argument was not posted by you
> >> to
> >> this
> >> thread.
> >
> >Incorrect.

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > Why,
> >> > > > > nowhere to be seen!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I can see it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps that's just the smudge of dirt on your glasses which had
> >> > > previously
> >> > > obfuscated your view of my evidence.  How convenient.
> >> >
> >> > Illogical,
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >Truth by assertion again?

Note: no response.

> >> > given that I would not have been able to see it had it been
> >> > obfuscated,
> >>
> >> Reading comprehension problems?  The smudge of dirt was the cause of
> >> the
> >> obfuscation.  Hence all you could see was said smudge.
> >
> >What alleged "dirt"?

Note: no response.

> >> > and given that I was not wearing glasses.
> >>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> >What is this, "The Little Engine That Could"?

Note: no response.

> >> > > > Comprehend context, Marty.
> >> > >
> >> > > Unnecessary, tholenbot, as no context was present.
> >> >
> >> > Illogical.
> >>
> >> Balderdash, tholenbot.
> >
> >See what I mean?

Note: no response.

> >> > I see you have snipped the context
> >>
> >> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such context to be
> >> "snipped".
> >
> >Incorrect.

Note: no response.

> >> > in a vain attempt
> >>
> >> You are erroneously presupposing the existence of "an attempt".
> >
> >Incorrect.

Note: no response.

> >> > to obscure the fact that your assertion is incorrect.
> >>
> >> What alleged "assertion"?
> >
> >Reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Note: no response.

> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > Note the change in subject when you realized
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > your
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > embarassment.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >Must
> >> > > > > > > > >> >have
> >> > > > > > > > >> >tried
> >> > > > > > > > >> >to
> >> > > > > > > > >> >change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too
> >> > > > > > > > >> >bad
> >> > > > > > > > >> >it
> >> > > > > > > > >> >didn't
> >> > > > > > > > >> >work.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >See above.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Not at all, Aaron.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Don't you know, tholenbot?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I see you didn't answer the question.  Typical.
> >> > >
> >> > > How ironic and typical, coming from someone who routinely doesn't
> >> > > "answer
> >> > > the
> >> > > question".  Why, this is the second (!!) time in this very post
> >> > > you've
> >> > > failed
> >> > > to "answer the question."
> >> >
> >> > "!!"?  How rich!
> >>
> >> No logical argument, eh?  No surprise there.
> >
> >Illogical, given that I am still waiting for you to answer the question.

Note: no response.


> Just to clear something up, I own not a single Balderdash garden,
> Marty. It's Pott's garden, and it's the only Balderdash garden that
> exists at this point.

Common sense makes a cameo appearance.

> Of course, Marty, you wouldn't know that, because
> you haven't been with these threads back in the days of the Bennett v.
> Pott and Tholen v. Pott ">>>>>Balderdash. >>>>Balderdash.
> >>>Balderdash.>>Balderdash. >Balderdash." posts.

Incorrect.  Marty replied to some of them.  As for you, you apparently
left before it reached its zenith.  For example:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=513110252

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                01-Dec-99 23:38:14
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Tholenbot Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

I see Marty continues to escalate his postings about me.  How
predictable.



In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Typical pontification from Eric "King of All Pontificators" Bennett.

How typical, coming from someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he
lacks decent pontiff recognition skills.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         01-Dec-99 23:51:10
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Forrest Gehrke <[e-mail]>

Richard A Crane wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:48:19, Forrest Gehrke
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > An interesting sidelight to all this: The Wall Street Journal
> > reported a listing of economic freedom by country which was
> > jointly done by WSJ and the Heritage Foundation.
> > The ranking of economically Free countries:
> >
> >   1. HongKong
> >   2. Singapore
> >   3. New Zealand
> >   4. Bahrain
> >      Luxembourg
> >      U.S.
> >   7. Ireland
> >   8. Australia
> >      Switzerland
> >      U.K.
> >
> > Under Mostly Free the list starts off with:
> >
> >   11. Canada.
> > //
> I recomend that anyone who believes that Hong Kong or
> Singapore are free countries try tangling with their legal
> systems when opposing the governments! Or read Geoffrey
> Robertson's book.
> Richard A Crane
> Barrister & Solicitor

If you are indeed a lawyer, there is something missing
in your reading comprehension.  The list is directed at
economic freedom in these countries, not political freedom.
For example, I doubt that HongKong gives two hoots in what
languages signs are written.
//

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 05:23:16
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 18:43:20 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>>
>> I'm back!
>
>Non sequitur.

Balderdash, Marty.

>> Miss me?
>
>I wasn't aiming for you, Aaron.

Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of the
crew all were aiming at me.

>> No? Balderdash.
>
>I see you are still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical
>argument.  Have you at least cleaned that dirt off of your glasses yet?

It's Pott's garden, not mine, and I cleaned my glasses a few posts ago.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 05:25:07
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451514

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 1 Dec 1999 09:21:59 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Does Dimsdale even realize that "tholenbot" is Eric Bennett?  Here's
>today's digest:

Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.

>1> No, Dave.
>
>Then why bother?

I care because you do, Dave.

>1> No, Dave.
>
>Then why bother?

I care because you do, Dave.

>1> No, Dave.

I care because you do, Dave.

>2> I'm back! Miss me? No? Balderdash.

I care because you do, Dave.

>3> Balderdash, tholenbot.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> Balderdash, tholenbot.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, tholenbot? How predictable.

I did not say that, Dave.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 05:32:06
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:48:21 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Aaron recently claimed that his glass have been dirty while reading my posts.


Several posts ago, I cleaned them and your posts looked exactly the same
afterwards.

>While this may explain his convenient inability to view the relevant evidence
I
>have presented to him, it does little to explain his rampant illogic and
>hypocrisy.

Several posts ago, I cleaned my glasses and your posts looked exactly
the same afterwards.

>For further evidence that he is indeed tending his own very well maintained
>Balderdash garden

There is no evidence that it is my Balderdash garden, only that I am
tending it.

>note how he quoted several of my postings, removing
>all
>relevant context from the quotes in question, and adding irrelevant
commentary

Balderdash, Marty.

>of his own.  Time to digestify his postings.

Unnecessary.

>1> Irrelevant
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> What I am "glad" about is irrelevant.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Balderdash.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Now Marty, the hypocrite, tells me that I have no evidence that he
>1> snipped the evidence himself. How ironic.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>1> Now Marty, the hypocrite, is telling me that I have no evidence that he
>1> himself snipped the evidence. How ironic.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>2> Marty, ever the critic, needs no introduction. His words speak for
>2> themselves.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>2> Where did I say "Which Tholen"?
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>2> I see no evidence of a Balderdash garden above, Marty.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>2>  (Note who's tending the Balderdash garden.)
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>2> No, Marty. I see you've still failed to answer my question.
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

>2>  (Note that Marty hasn't answered the question yet.)
>
>"Balderdash."

Balderdash, Marty.

>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

An obvious lie.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                02-Dec-99 00:38:27
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451514

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <_on14.7852$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 1 Dec 1999 09:21:59 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> >Does Dimsdale even realize that "tholenbot" is Eric Bennett?  Here's
> >today's digest:
>
> Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.

Typical invective.  Pott is TholenBot Pro.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                02-Dec-99 00:43:22
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <wvn14.7872$[e-mail]>, Aaron "Ian"
Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.
>
> An obvious lie.

What is "obvious" about it, Aaron?

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   02-Dec-99 00:45:13
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <pnn14.7847$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> Miss me?
> >
> >I wasn't aiming for you, Aaron.
>
> Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of the
> crew all were aiming at me.

Tholenbot aims at FUD and lies.  Pott has not posted in this thread.
Reading comprehension problems again, Aaron?  :-)

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     01-Dec-99 22:04:18
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
> >:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >:>: In article <[e-mail]>,
> >:>: [e-mail] says...
> >:>:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
> >:>:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
> >:>:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
> >:>:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
> >:>:>
> >:>:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
> >:>:>version.
> >:>:>
> >:>
> >:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
> >:>
> >:>How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
> >:>besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
> >:>developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
> >:>is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
> >:>is still coming along nicely.
> >:>
> >:>I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.
> >:>
> >
> >: You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project
Magic
> >: started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
> >: of the OS/2 version.
> >
> >: You guys have amazing revisionist abilities.
> >
> >And you have a not so amazing ability to duck the question.  Of course,
> >when you are flat out wrong, what else can you do?  Can you show me how
> >the OS/2 version had a 2 year head start an any other platform for opera???
> >
> >No you can't, in fact the OS/2 version got scrapped once because of the
> >developement team, and got restarted in 1999.  Your comments make even
> >less sense when you consider they were talking about the version 4
> >browser.  How could OS/2 have a two year head start on Windows for the
> >version 4 browser when it's a port???  They weren't even working on
> >version 4 two years ago!!!
> >
> >-Jason
> >
>
> You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
> and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
> released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.
>
> Stop being silly.

Even the developer(s) are telling you that you're wrong.
Pahh what do they know?




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 06:07:15
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451513

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:45:27 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:

>In article <pnn14.7847$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> >> Miss me?
>> >
>> >I wasn't aiming for you, Aaron.
>>
>> Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of the
>> crew all were aiming at me.
>
>Tholenbot aims at FUD and lies.  Pott has not posted in this thread.
>Reading comprehension problems again, Aaron?  :-)
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
>-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

Darn glasses, I better start cleaning again.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 06:18:18
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:43:44 -0500, tholenbot wrote:

>In article <wvn14.7872$[e-mail]>, Aaron "Ian"
>Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> >I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.
>>
>> An obvious lie.
>
>What is "obvious" about it, Aaron?

Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Soccer QA Engineer (Defenseman)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     01-Dec-99 22:37:16
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: Paranoia from an Ent.

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:

> Hey, critic is as critic does.  Stop your childish accusations, they are
> beginning to irritate me.
>
> Yes, I laughed at IBM's obvious promotion - and I was a gigantic
OS-fucking-2
> promoter at the time (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

... [ Please, talk like an adult ] ...

> If you think I'm one-sided on this sort of marketing issue, you are grossly
> mistaken and quite obtuse as well.

... [ I was clear - you misuse the word obtuse ] ...

> Microsoft actually deserves some CREDIT because they are not slopping their
> name for extended periods of time all over the place.

Hypocrite - now you're apologizing for MS, giving them credit for copy-catting
something stupid and doing a worse job of executing - it's essentially
invisible


> And you accuse me of being a windows advocate when IBM is obviously and
> directly guilty of being one!
>
> You don't seem to understand, partly because of your infintile opinions
> regarding OS/2 and how everyone else has apparently treated it so badly (we
> only follow IBM's lead, which is noticable to those who can see the truth).
>
> Although I haven't seen the latest farce (oops, movie) I find it odd that
this
> article which you are holding on to for dear life, is placed in RUMORS...

 Clam down - it's just a joke at MS's expense.  Let's all laugh at how MS is
dysfunction ally copying all of IBM's mistakes:  Frightened of change,
Anti-trust
problems, bloated software, vapor ware, stupid product promotions.  It's fun
to
laugh so go ahead ....  ha ha ha.  Stupid MS geeks trying to be cool like
James
Bond.  : )   Get real guys and gals in Redmond.  They should get a life - take
a
day off - say one day per  week and make it Sunday.  Try to understand cool
and
not live fantasy lives based on ... James Bond.

> I'm sorry if this ends up as still another rant against IBM but it's not
hard
> to be angry at them since they are solely at fault for OS/2's demise and you
> seem to be more happy stereotyping anyone against OS/2 instantly as a
windows
> advocate without thought or reason.

Hey OS/2 is just a OS for a dead end device, the multi-purpose invention of
the
70's, The Personal Computer.   go ahead and take my PC away.  I'm not going to
buy
a new one -- ever!   Windows, OS/2, BeOS, all of these are passing - think of
J.
R. R. Tolkien's "Middle-Earth" is the PC and the OSs are the Orac, Hobbit,
Elf,
Dwarf ...   It's all passing away.

You have such a long memory of a world that has passed long, long, long ago -
like
an Ent.   Let go of IBM....IBM's busy setting records for disk storage density
and
whatever -- Dell will resell their stuff as products and you'll buy it
drooling
over the specs and Dell's great brand -- or maybe Gateway or some other OEM.
IBM's a technology company.  Get with it - stop hating something that no
longer
exists.  Enjoy life.  Don't be an Ent.

> josco wrote:
>
> > For those windows lovers who laughed at the OS/2 WARP promotion in a James
> > Bond Movie. See if you can find the WinCE logo in the newest moive.
> >
> > http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html?st.ne.rum.idx.gif.a
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 06:35:25
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 03:28:00
Subj: What the heck's going on?

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

Why are anti-OS/2-advocate-advocates posting their B.S. on this
newsgroup? This is obviously a newsgroup for OS/2 advocates. Read the
name. If you want to talk about how much OS/2 and its users suck, talk
about it with your buddies on cswa or cowa or csma or coma or wherever
your Windows or MacOS or BeOS or whatever advocates reside. I don't mean
to say anything bad about Windows or MacOS or BeOS, because they all
have their strengths and weaknesses (and I can't say anything either way
on BeOS because I haven't used it), as do every OS--but this is a
newsgroup FOR OS/2 ADVOCATES. It's not a newsgroup FOR FLAMING OS/2
ADVOCATES.

Hope I've smacked enough sense into you Anti-OS/2-Advocate-Advocates.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        02-Dec-99 07:38:09
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 05:22:14
Subj: Re: RE VT USAGES

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Richard A Crane <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-N7FN1rkVEFZV@localhost...
| On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:59:40, [e-mail] wrote:
|
| > Second, if you think you cannot manage your own time without a GUI,
| > you just aren't thinking.
|
| Those that even need a computer to schedule their time
| should think again also

Oh?  And I suppose you have found a way for your
co-workers to read your day timer?  Have you found
a way for your assistant to scribble a note in your
day timer while you are on a business trip 1,000 miles
away?  Have you also found a way to integrate your
emails into a day timer?  Maybe you also have a
process for your boss to schedule a meeting with you
and have that meeting request waiting in your day
timer, for your approval.  And all of this while you
are 1,000 miles away on a business trip?

You have a GREAT product there.  Give me a call.
I know a view Vulture Capitalists that would LOVE
to give you many to mass produce your day timer!!

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               02-Dec-99 03:07:18
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 05:22:14
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Richard A Crane wrote:
> [snip]
> > My teaching style is goal-oriented:
> [snip]
> > jim frost
> > [e-mail]
> And my question is how much use is that if someone moves the
> goal posts?
> Without any understanding of the processes or procedures
> what use is someone who can click and double click on the
> "right (correct) button"?  An "update" or change (eg
> WordPerfect to Word) renders their "skill" useless.
> Goal oriented teaching suffers from this (and never mind the
> trainers temptation to get repeat business).

The idea is to get them doing something and then once they're effective to use
that knowledge to explain general principles.  It's not a scripting method
(which I agree is ineffective and, unfortunately, all too common).  The goal
is a stepping-stone, not the end result.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 03:07:04
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 05:22:14
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:

:>:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
:>:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!

<big snip>

: You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
: and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
: released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.

: Stop being silly.

Stop avoiding the question and back up your statements.

Since you have reading problems:

HOW HAS THE OS/2 VERSION OF THE OPERA WEB BROWSER HAD A 2 YEAR HEAD START
ON ANY OF THE OTHER PLATFORMS FOR OPERA???

This is what you claimed.  This is what I disproved.  Stop grandstanding
and be a man. Explain your statements or admit you were wrong (or ignore
my post altogether)

BeOS started: 1997
Epoch started: 1997
MacOS started: 1997
Linux started: 1997
OS/2 started: 1997 (scrapped and started again in 1999)
Amiga stated: 1997 (srapped altogether)
Windows started: way before all of this

Now, how does OS/2 have a two year head start on any of these
platforms???  At worse case OS/2 started at the same time as any of the
non-windows platforms.  In which case, what the hell is the point of your
posts.  All this to complain that the previous developers for the OS/2
version sucked?  What does this prove?

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               02-Dec-99 04:11:10
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 05:22:14
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > > Yes it does, because clues to CLI options that are invisible are shown
> to
> > > the user (baloon help, tooltips, hints applets etc) while they are
> > > performing the operation.
> >
> > All of this was possible using textual interfaces.  The information
> density
> > wasn't as good is all.
> >
>
> The information density _IS_ the key difference.  More information can be
> presented and modified on an effective gui.

I agree that it *can* be, though I don't agree that it *is* in any of the
common ones.  Rather, I've seen a lot of information hidden behind icons.
Balloon help, tooltips, and the like are necessary to explain pictographics
that are otherwise meaningless to the new user.

> > FWIW it's interesting to me to see how a lot of applications have returned
> to
> > the old "give them a big menu" approach, even if it now includes pictures.
> > Simple menus work better than iconic interfaces.
> >
>
> But the menus are far different because of use of OO technology has made the
> menus dynamic rather than static.

Why is this not possible in a textual application?  (The truth of the matter
is that it IS possible, and some textual applications used the technique prior
to the widespread use of GUIs.)

> > > How well does your cli function without a keyboard.  GUI's do this all
> the
> > > time.
> >
> > You're changing the subject but as it turns out textual interfaces (of
> which
> > CLIs are a subset) can do the same things that GUIs can do without a
> > keyboard.  A lot of kiosk systems worked that way a few years ago you
> might
> > recall.
>
> Explain.

Until recently bitmapped displays were too expensive for kiosk operations, so
they used textual displays.  Touch-screen textual displays were (still are)
effective for a lot of tasks, including POS systems and inventory management.
My local grocery-store had a textual interface with a touch-screen system to
help you find things.  It didn't need the added bandwidth of graphical
display, and it didn't need a keyboard.

Textual interfaces need not be command-line interfaces.  A lot of people seem
to forget that.  The latter is usually more useful with a keyboard, but the
former can go either way.

> Your methods are fundamentally the same as mine, but I don't see the
> difficulty with the mouse.  Maybe the application of the methods and
> attitude of the instructor is bearing through.  You don't see the mouse as
> useful and your students have trouble using them, I do see the mouse as
> useful and my students don't experience the difficulties.

I assure you, I do see the mouse as useful.  (In fact it's more than useful,
it's completely necessary for most mainstream applications today.)  It's not
true that my students have trouble using them; it doesn't take all that long
to pick up.  But there *is* a learning curve associated with mouse use: you
have to teach them how to manage double-click and drag and drop, for
instance.  It takes practice to do these things reliably.

I'm having a real hard time believing that you've never seen someone have
trouble getting a double-click accomplished because they keep moving the
pointer while clicking.  Or accidentally dragging an icon while they're trying
to select it.  Or having trouble doing a drag because they keep letting go of
the button.  In my experience these things are not only common in first-time
mouse users, they're universal.

(Different pointer devices have different requirements in this respect.  Pen
systems are really easily learned (except for double-click), presumably
because most everyone has used a pen or pointing stick before, and trackballs
are easier to keep stable while clicking -- though the latter is a lot harder
to use for drag-and-drop gestures.)

> > I don't really know what your point is?  Certainly there are pointer
> > interfaces with a lot more bandwidth than is typical, but they're
> certainly
> > not what we were talking about and they still don't help with a variety of
> > common applications (eg a wordprocessor).
> >
>
> Yes they do,  selecting text for formatting/cut/paste etc. is much simpler
> for a beginner to understand and can be used even at views that don't allow
> for fully displaying text.  Would you rather return to the . commands of
> Word Star.  Compare selecting cutting and pasting text in WordStar to the
> methods used in Word8.

Point taken, but tasks performed during text entry (like font change or even
simple cursor moves like go-back-one-word) are a lot harder to do when you
have to stop and switch to the mouse and then go back to the keyboard.  That's
a big efficiency hit to a touch-typist.  Bandwidth is better if they don't
have to do that.

I also have to note that most applications provide keyboard shortcuts for
common features, and that advanced users tend to make a lot of use of them.
Again, better bandwidth.

> > > Let's take file management for a second here.  Are you saying that a '$'
> and
> > > some arcane commands ( ls, cp, mv etc ) or a 'c:\' prompt and other
> arcane
> > > commands (dir, copy, move etc.) are easier for a beginner to understand
> than
> > > a GUI displaying a tree of folders containing sub folders?
> >
> > Oh no, I'm not saying that at all.  There's no reason why you can't show
> that
> > same tree in either interface, something that a lot of GUI advocates
> readily
> > forget.
>
> It doesnt have the same impact when it looks like a bunch of words connected
> by lines.

Maybe it's not as pretty, but it contains the same information and similar
information density.

> > What I'm saying that a menu-driven (ie textual) interface that shows that
> tree
> > is going to be easier to learn than a point-and-click interface, assuming
> that
> > you're starting from scratch with both.  This is because there are a lot
> > (close to half a dozen) of gestural input conventions that have to be
> learned
> > prior to being able to do anything at all with the point-and-click
> interface.
>
> Not true.

Certainly it's true.  Point-and-click is a gesture you have to learn to get
anything at all done, and there are usually at least two variations of it
(left click for select versus right click for an object action menu).  A lot
of operations require additional variations (shift-click for range selection,
control-click for group selection).  Double-click is a gesture (object open on
many systems).  Drag is a gesture (needed for menu access on some systems, and
sometimes for delete/eject).  Then there's control-drag (copy on Windows).
There's a half-dozen of them right there in order to be able to use most of
Windows' interface -- and almost all of them are needed just to make basic use
of the interface.

The Mac is in some ways better (fewer gestures for the basic interface) and
some ways worse  (more use of keyboard-and-mouse chording to make up for the
single mouse button).

Every one of these gestures requires some motor skills to be learned.  They're
not *hard* skills, but they're necessary prerequisites to using the system,
and they're skills that aren't used outside of computer systems.

Again, I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't seen first-time
computer users spend time learning these things.  I've never seen any
first-time user that didn't have to spend some time getting this stuff
straight.

> > Another thing I'm trying to point out is that there are places where the
> > arcane system works a lot better than a GUI system in time-to-usefulness.
> > Launching applications is one of them.  Getting someone to type "edit" is
> a
> > lot easier than teaching them how to double-click on an editor icon; they
> > don't have to learn special motor skills first.
> >
>
> What special motor skills? Moving ones hand is something you are born doing,
> pushing a button is something one does dialing the phone, and normally
> intelligent person can combine these actions based on visual cues without
> much difficulty (barring physical infirmity of course).

Moving a mouse (or not) while simultaneously pushing a button requires some
practice.  It's not that the individual actions are hard, but that the two
together require some coordination.  There is also some hand/eye coordination
development necessary because the pointing device is usually disjoint from the
display (pen-based systems are a big improvement here).

> > Considering that the first and most common thing anyone does with a
> computer
> > is launch an application I think this is kind of significant to the
> learning
> > curve.
> >
>
> You are still teaching Open application then open the file?  Time to change
> paradigm, find the file you want to open, double click and the application
> starts.  No typing or memorizing required.

Whether you launch the application by double-clicking the application icon or
double-clicking the file icon is immaterial to my point.  You have to master
double-click either way.

As for learning the "new paradigm" (keeping in mind that there's nothing
especially new about this, nor even specific to GUIs), perhaps you can explain
to me how the first-time user is going to double-click a file that s/he hasn't
created yet.  You have to start somewhere, and where you start is launching an
application.

Aside: The Lisa used to use a document-centric approach for creating a new
document; you made a blank one and what you filled it with determined the
document type.  (I think the Star worked this way too but I never had the
opportunity to use a Star.)  This is arguably how paper is used, so you'd
think it would be intuitive.  Unfortunately Apple found that that confused
people badly so they switched to launching the application and using the
application to create the initial file.  I suppose you could consider this as
similar to picking the right kind of paper for the document you want to create
(plain, lined, quadrille, etc).

Whatever the reason it was a serious enough impediment that Apple changed
their interface to avoid it.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               02-Dec-99 04:21:07
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 12:07:28
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Tim Adams wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Roger <roger@.>
wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:07:02 -0500, someone claiming to be Tim Adams
> > wrote:
> >
> > >It is my understanding that the copy they bought was a _pirated_ and
> > >modified version of Seattle Computer's DOS.
> >
> > Your understanding is seriously flawed.
> >
> > >Both versions were licensed by
> > >IBM for release with the first PC. MS's version took control because IBM
> > >priced them so differently - one for ~$50 and the other for ~$150.
> > >They licensed both because they (IBM) was concerned because of rumors
they
> > >had heard of MS's version being stolen AND that Seattle Computer was
about
> > >to sue MS for doing the stealing. In their licensing deal with Seattle
> > >Computer, Gary Kildahl (bad spelling on the name) told IBM to go ahead,
he
> > >wouldn't sue but beat them (MS) with a better product. IBM then screwed
> > >him with the price.
> >
> > You have mixed up CP/M, QDOS, Tim Patterson, Gary Kildall and more
> > than a bit of whole cloth here.
> >
> > Do try not to make yourself look so foolish next time?
>
> So why don't you enlighten the world with your understanding of the
> beginnings of DOS for the IBM pc? Mine came from people at IBM, interviews
> with people that talked with Gary Kildall, an historical run down on the
> pbs show Computer chronicles, and a couple magazine articles.

Well, for one thing the pricing figures you give are all way off.  MS-DOS was
I think $69 whereas the other two available OS's were both $299 (give or take
$10). The pricing was primarily determined by the vendors, not by IBM; Gates
had such a lowball price because they offered it to IBM at rock-bottom prices
in exchage for nonexclusivity (arguably a deal that IBM should not have
taken).

The rumors of MS-DOS being stolen came a lot later, after CP/M had already
lost to MS-DOS in the market.  IBM offered both MS-DOS and CP/M (and
additionally UCSD Pascal) because they were hedging their bets: CP/M was the
best bet because that's what everyone else was using, but Kildall was
something of a flake and they didn't trust him.  And UCSD Pascal could have
been interesting if it took off because it offered platform independence (ala
Java).  Their solution?  Offer all of these things and let the customer
decide.

Assuming you don't have access to the actual people involved (most people
don't) you can find a ton of detail on these things in Caroll's _Big Blues_
and Cringely's _Accidental Empires_.  Both are interesting reading and are
quite complementary in giving a more complete picture of what was going on.
Cringely is the guy who did those PBS specials so you can find in print all
that stuff (and a lot more) that you saw on PBS.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         02-Dec-99 11:31:22
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 12:07:28
Subj: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Haakmat is now back, which gives me the opportunity to take care of
some unfinished business from this summer.  Here's the latest digest:

1> What a lot of words to avoid having to say directly that Dave is an
1> strong influence and inspiration to us all. Let's not be childish
1> with praise now if the rare occurence arrives to do so. Dave's style
1> is infective, viral in it's nature. We can all attest to that. To my
1> amusement I find myself applying successfully his technique to
1> situations outside Usenet. Apply the chant of "Irrelevant, Incorrect,
1> Illogical" and everything dissolves. Very zen. Hoorah for Dave, I hope
1> the Usenet posting gives him a frequent laugh.

I hope you chant appropriately.

2> I cannot answer the question within digest form. Therefore digest form
2> is useless, thereby for my intents and purposes irrelevant.

Digest form is quite useful for my purposes.

3> Dave, how have I missed you. It is nice to see Eric Bennett, primus
3> inter pares, was pivotal to your belated and much anticipated return
3> in csma.

He was not.  Marty was pivotal.  And I did not "return" to csma.  I
simply responded to another cross-posted article.  THose who start
cross-posted threads bring this on themselves.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         02-Dec-99 11:32:07
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 12:07:28
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Today's Dimsdale digest:

1> Just to clear something up, I own not a single Balderdash garden,
1> Marty. It's Pott's garden, and it's the only Balderdash garden that
1> exists at this point. Of course, Marty, you wouldn't know that, because
1> you haven't been with these threads back in the days of the Bennett v.
1> Pott and Tholen v. Pott ">>>>>Balderdash. >>>>Balderdash.
1> >>>Balderdash.>>Balderdash. >Balderdash." posts.

Were you "with" these threads back then?

2> Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of
2> the crew all were aiming at me.

Aiming what, allegedly?

3> Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.

You've confirmed that you're having trouble keeping track of who's who.

3> I care because you do, Dave.

Illogical.

3> I care because you do, Dave.

Illogical.

3> I care because you do, Dave.

Illogical.

3> I care because you do, Dave.

Illogical.

3> Balderdash, Dave.

An unsubstantiated claim.

3> Balderdash, Dave.

An unsubstantiated claim.

3> I did not say that, Dave.

Incorrect.

4> Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?

AD] Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         02-Dec-99 11:32:28
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 12:07:28
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Truly amazing that Marty started off his posting with a lie.  The
evidence was right there in the first line of his quoted material,
which was:

] 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough,

yet he claimed that the article wasn't about me.  An interesting
development in Marty's "infantile game".  Here's today's digest:

1> Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a
1> response to any articles posted to or about him.  As usual, he's
1> trying to blame me for something he caused.  If we're lucky and I
1> call him on the irrelevant cross-posting, he may even pull the old
1> "aim at the base of the flames" argument out from retirement.  And
1> one can only wonder whether his exchanges with Eric Bennett are
1> indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been playing on
1> me.  Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
1> had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another
1> thread in COOA and consists of several thousand lines):

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> [Note:  Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that
1> were not intended for him in this infantile "digest".  Just further
1> evidence of his nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further
1> evidence were needed)]

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   02-Dec-99 12:09:03
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Pascal Haakmat)

Dave Tholen wrote:

>Haakmat is now back, which gives me the opportunity to take care of
>some unfinished business from this summer.  Here's the latest digest:

"back", Dave? God knows I never left, anxiously awaiting your return.

You are such a considerate fine gentleman, Dave. My heart SWELLS with joy
that you took the trouble to follow up on some of our, you phrase it so
delicately accurate, unfinished business.

>I hope you chant appropriately.

Like a broken clock, I chant endlessly, in the hope of being appropriate
at least twice a day.

>Digest form is quite useful for my purposes.

Ah, digest form. It is such a joy to hear you extoll the virtues of digest
form. When did you first begin to consider digest form, Dave?

>He was not.  Marty was pivotal.  And I did not "return" to csma.  I
>simply responded to another cross-posted article.  THose who start
>cross-posted threads bring this on themselves.

That's Dave for you, always heedful and alert! Of course you did not
"return" to csma, Dave. But I was only being wishful. Won't you grant me the
illusion that, yes, just maybe, you returned to csma just to continue your
unfinished business with me?

--
CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 07:58:29
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 02:30 PM,
   [e-mail] (Andrew Stephenson) said:

> In article <3842703d$3$obot$[e-mail]>
>        [e-mail] "Bob Germer" writes:

> > [...]
> >
> > No American is forced to pay taxes to support an unelected head
> > of state who lives 3,000 miles away and only sets foot in the
> > country every decade or less.
> >
> > [...]

> Sorry to stop you in mid-flow, Bob.  If it's Queen Liz 2 of the Windsors
> we're discussing, the way I heard it is, we in the UK pay for her upkeep
> (and that of her sprogs) and the rest of the Commonwealth are allowed to
> borrow her, essentially free, over the weekends.  A smart move on their
> part, I've always thought.

I understand that the Canadian, Australian, etc. governments must
reimburse the Royal Navy or Air Force for the costs of her transportation,
pay for her lodgings, etc. Since governments have no income other than
what they raise via taxes, user charges, or whatever other euphanism
governments the world over use to hide the fact they are fleecing
taxpayers, the citizens of those countries are forced to pay.

> If it's otherwise, then yes I suppose I'd be a tad vexed too.

They also have to pay for the Governor General (in Canada - I don't know
if that title is universal in the realm) who does nothing. Now the GG of
Canada doesn't have the staff of our President nor is his residence nearly
as large as our White House. He doesn't get the security our Prez needs
(to no small extent due to the number of aggrieved husbands and boyfriends
looking for a shot at Billy).

But when one combines the cost of housing, security, salary, etc. of the
Prime Minister with the costs of maintaining the Queen's representative, I
imagine the cost per citizen in Canada is not much less than our cost per
citizen for President Bubba.

> But look at it this way: the Windsors are prepared to do those dirty
> jobs we commoners won't touch: read out hours of boring speeches; shake
> hands with innumerable scumbag foreign leaders (along with the nice
> ones, of course); oversee horse breeding; help keep down the grouse
> population; house-sit those draughty old palaces; test ickky recipes;...
> Hey, it's not easy.  Dare say they even have to be nice to King Billy
> when he comes round. --

I presume King Billy refers to President Bubba, not Chief Thief Billy
Gates. And, I suppose that making nice with that liar from Arkansas does
make HRM somewhat worth what you all pay one way or another for her and
her offspring.

And if perchance the other Billy should come to visit, I suggest you take
a lesson from your history and do to him what the Campbells did to the
MacDonalds at Glencoe a few decades back.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 07:28:03
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81uc0f$nuh$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 05:09 PM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

>  Lars, I was going to respond to this with a flame that you should >
> have read the rest of my post before replying so knee-jerkily,

> I did read it.

> Does Microsoft send people to force you to buy their products?  Which
> gun is being placed at your skull?

No, it sends people to the manufacturers and vendors of computers forcing
them to include Windows on every machine they sell or pay four times as
much for Windows. Thus competition forces vendors to comply since the
margin on a typical PC is far less than 4 times the price of Windows if
they do.

> Or is it a matter of Microsoft "forcing you" to buy the product by
> providing a valued product at an affordable rate?

Valued product? Not to me it is not. It is a piece of garbage I do not and
will not use but must pay for despite my desire to use an alternate
operating system. I do, however, give those copies away free to friends,
relatives, etc. who wish to upgrade from Windows 3.1 or 95. I use a couple
of Windows 95 CD's as frisbees for my dog.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 07:17:13
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81uc53$nuh$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 05:12 PM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:


> Time to ask a simple question: how does this monopoly keep a competitor
> from forming.  All that is needed is a mechanism.

A monopoly as defined by US law is a company so dominant in its industry
segment that it can force its will on virtually the entire market segment.
MS forces computer buyers to pay for Windows whether the customer wants to
or not.

A monopoly as defined in US law is a company which can set prices
regardless of actual cost or value. Microsoft still charges the same price
for its products as the day they were released. No other consumer product
in my memory is not reduced in price as the end of production nears.

A monopoly as defined in US law is a company which can force competitors
out of business or make it financially unfeasible to compete. Where is
Digital Research? Where is Seattle Computer? Where are several other DOS's
which I could buy in 1988?

A monopoly under US law is a company which can force third parties to
conform to its will and to cease taking actions which would help an actual
or potential competitor. Where are WordPerfect, Volkswriter, Brown Bag
Software, and hundreds of other companies which wrote software for other
than Windows?

IBM was twice found to be a monopoly in the past 40 or so years yet there
are other companies which produce mainframe computers. IBM was forced to
comply with the same law that MS is being held to have violated.

> > >The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.
> >
> > As if you have even read it let alone understand it.

> Read, understood, almost puked.

Well, you are not a US citizen. You don't have to like our law. However,
if you cross the southern border of Canada, you damn well better obey it.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 07:09:21
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <81uccp$nuh$[e-mail]>, on 11/29/99 at 05:16 PM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> > What are you smoking, snorting, or shooting? The U.S. Courts have
> > determined that MS is a monopoly.

> Yes, they have.  Now, what does that mean?  It doesn't mean that
> Microsoft is devoid of competition.  Do you have another definition of a
> monopoly? Say, a business which is winning a competition?

Monopoly as defined by U. S. law is a company so dominant in an industry
segment that it can dictate to the entire segment, use its position to
damage competitors, overcharge customers, etc.

> > Again the question. The U.S. Government does not establish monopolies.

> Right now, there are 3 examples that come to mind of monopolies I live
> under:

> - Cable television.  Under the CRTC, Edmonton has 2 cable companies.
> One is only allowed to sell on the east side of town, the other only on
> the west

This is not true in the United States. Each state here establishes the
rules for cable television companies. Several communities here have a
second franchise, much to the chagrin of the cable television industry. In
those communities, rates are much lower, btw.

> - Telephone service.  While I can choose any long distance provider, I
> can only have one local phone service.  Anything else is illegal.

We have choices for local telephone service here in the United States.

> - Health care.  I am only allowed to use one health care system, the
> government one.  It is illegal to be serviced by a hospital not
> government-administered.

Well, that is not the case in the United States despite the best efforts
of the liberals who would foist such a rotten system off on us. That is
why there are dozens if not hundreds of small border towns with more
physicians than residents.

> None of these can exist without the government.  I can think of no
> monopolies I live under not involving government.

Microsoft comes to mind. Try buying an Intel based computer without paying
for Windows.

> > > The finding of fact is comprised of fiction.
> >
> > You are really stoned out. The finding of fact is the reasoned judgement
> > of a United States District Court Judge.

> Applying a set of laws that have no validity in real life, or any
> rational basis.

They have very real validity in the United States. The reasoning set for
in the FOF is rock solid and unassailable unless one concludes that every
witness cited was lying or misquoted. And once a FOF has been made, it is
extremely rare for any appellate court to overrule the finder of fact be
it a judge or jury.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 08:18:27
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <3845ed74$0$[e-mail]>, on 12/01/99 at 04:56 PM,
   [e-mail] (Jerry Lapham) said:

> IBM is only supporting OS/2 to the extent that some of their large
> customers demand it.  If there aren't any such large customers in
> Australia, there's no reason to provide *any* support there.

>     -Jerry

Wrong, Jerry, wrong. IBM does provide support for Warp around the world as
I posted in another article here.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         02-Dec-99 11:25:27
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Truly amazing that Marty started off his posting with a lie.  The
evidence was right there in the first line of his quoted material,
which was:

] 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough,

yet he claimed that the article wasn't about me.  An interesting
development in Marty's "infantile game".  Here's today's digest:

1> Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a
1> response to any articles posted to or about him.  As usual, he's
1> trying to blame me for something he caused.  If we're lucky and I
1> call him on the irrelevant cross-posting, he may even pull the old
1> "aim at the base of the flames" argument out from retirement.  And
1> one can only wonder whether his exchanges with Eric Bennett are
1> indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been playing on
1> me.  Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
1> had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another
1> thread in COOA and consists of several thousand lines):

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> [Note:  Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that
1> were not intended for him in this infantile "digest".  Just further
1> evidence of his nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further
1> evidence were needed)]

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 09:14:27
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: When will it be 100% done?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 12/02/99 at 12:00 AM,
   "Adrian Gschwend" <[e-mail]> said:


> >After all, the Opera people DEMANDED that OS/2 users pay the $35 fee UP
> >FRONT as a 'sign of loyalty'.  OS/2 users paid and are still waiting for
> >a return on their little investment since they had to prove to Opera
> >that they were worth it.

A blatant lie. We were asked if we were willing to make a deposit when
certain events happened. I forget just what the trigger was, perhaps the
release of a beta. But I was never asked for a cent.

> I don't know a single person who already payed the $35, so don't talk
> bullshit here.

You are absolutely correct. Neither do I nor have I ever heard of anyone
who did.

> And our team started about three month ago so we are faster than every
> other port.

Absolutely considering the absolute mess the previous team made of it.
Keep up the great work.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             02-Dec-99 12:58:18
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <824gvi$je9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic,
central
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question - looks like we've hit another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major soft spot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>> ....and again.
>
> >> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> > ....and again.
>
> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

...and again.

The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  02-Dec-99 14:25:14
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: Jim Stuyck <[e-mail]>


c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...

...the same thing twice.  Amazing.  I've lost count of the number of times
Wedgie Boy pounced on someone for posting the identical newsgroup
article twice.

Jim Stuyck


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: J. D. Stuyck and Associates -- Retired (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 09:28:20
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 12/01/99 at 11:57 PM,
   "Adrian Gschwend" <[e-mail]> said:

> >You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project Magic

> >started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
> >of the OS/2 version.

> Well, we started about three month ago so we are AHEAD of each other
> team compared to the time. Dream on guy

Welcome, Adrian, and thanks for the rapid progress you are making. Of
course you are right that all OS's started at the same time none having a
head start as McCoy claimed.

I don't read his posts, he is killfiled here because he is a proven liar
time after time who apparently was too stupid to use OS/2 and now appears
to be paid by MS to spread lies and FUD.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 09:18:13
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Opera and Kelly Robinson

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson has once again proved him or her self to be a world-wide
liar of the worst sort.

The worthless pondscum proclaimed in this newsgroup that Opera demanded
and accepted money from those who wanted an OS/2 version of the Opera
browser.

These are absolute lies made out of whole cloth. They are despicable 100%
fabrications.

I OFFERED to send money and they refused. They only asked us to make a
moral committment to purchase once the product was finished. They never
accepted a cent from anyone for an OS/2 version of the product.

For the record, I have absolutely no affiliation of any sort with Opera or
anyone associated with Opera. I am just someone who abhors liars like
Robinson.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 08:54:15
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> No, it sends people to the manufacturers and vendors of computers forcing
> them to include Windows on every machine they sell or pay four times as
> much for Windows.

That's not coercive.  It's a package deal.  Microsoft can't force computer
distributors to put Windows on their machines; but they _can_ say that "if
you sell a computer with windows, we'll give you a massive discount on it".

> Thus competition forces vendors to comply since the
> margin on a typical PC is far less than 4 times the price of Windows if
> they do.

Wrong.

If a customer buys a computer without Windows, the store isn't buying
Windows from Microsoft for that particular machine, so it becomes a
non-issue.

If the customer wants to buy Windows as an add-on later, then they pay 4
times as much as they would have paid if they'd bought Windows with the
machine.

That is _not_ a monopoly, nor is it a "monopolistic" practise.

> Valued product? Not to me it is not. It is a piece of garbage I do not and
> will not use but must pay for despite my desire to use an alternate
> operating system.

No you don't.  You just don't buy Windows with the machine.  The store won't
care: they'll just package that Windows system with a different machine and
buy one less package from MicroSoft.

> I do, however, give those copies away free to friends,
> relatives, etc. who wish to upgrade from Windows 3.1 or 95. I use a couple
> of Windows 95 CD's as frisbees for my dog.

What a silly way to choose to waste your money -- and it is 100% _your_
choice to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 16:04:13
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: Martin Brown <[e-mail]>

ALDEL wrote:

> In <[e-mail]>, on 12/01/99
>    at 08:28 PM, Martin Brown <[e-mail]> said:
>
> >Thomas Billert wrote:
>
> >> Hi Richard,
> >>
> >> On 1 Dec 1999 14:42:21 GMT, Richard A Crane wrote in
> >> comp.os.os2.misc:
> >>
> >> >PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
> >> >upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
> >> >alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure
> >> >y2k compliance?
> >>
> >> have a look at http://www.warpupdates.de/
>
> >Ooops !!!
>
> >While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.warpupdates.de/ The
> >following error was encountered:
>
> >    ERROR 205 -- DNS name lookup failure. Please contact your system
> >administrator.
>
> >It works about as well as some of the IBM links :(

>
> It works OK here!

Must have been a transient network fault. OK from here now too !

Regards,
Martin Brown

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Nezumi (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  02-Dec-99 09:19:24
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Sorry wrong newgroup....

From: K M Hopkins <[e-mail]>

I am  so sorry all, I didn't realize this was a 'Bill Gates let me suck
your ass.oh mighty one.os.win.is the best.advocacy' group. Does anyone
ever talk about OS/2? Such enormous threads that have been created to
talk about balderdash.

Kent.just my two cents.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                       02-Dec-99 17:15:18
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Windows Powered (To the tune of She's Too Fat For me)

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

josco wrote:
>Just a little song about windows.
>http://milton.mse.jhu.edu:8001/research/folkindex/S07.htm
>She's Too Fat For me
>1.Parker, Chet. Hammered Dulcimer, Folkways FA 2381, LP (1966),
>cut# 3b
>Oh I dont want it
>you can have it
>it's too fat for me.
>it's too fat for me.
>it's too fat for me.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Good return volley, Joseph!! Smash hit!

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                       02-Dec-99 17:13:27
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:12
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

DLO News wrote:
>"we are sorry to see you go, but we would hate to stand in your way"
>seems appropriate

Naahhhhhhhhh!!!
You sorry to see him go?? Not me, no, uh-uh...
:-)

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                  02-Dec-99 16:27:22
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:13
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: "Lennart Gahm" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 08:22:37 -0500, Bob Germer wrote:

>On <HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-SkUDF7V0CEPr@localhost>, on 12/01/99 at 02:42 PM,
>   [e-mail] (Richard A Crane) said:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:25:12, Bob Germer
>> <[e-mail]> wrote in part:
>
>> My general mood was not improved by spending what seemed to  be an
>> exessive amount of time trying to find the IBM site  that has all the
>> y2k fixes for all parts of OS/2 Warp (base  system fix packs, device
>> driver packs, TCP/IP fix packs, are there do I need MPTS fix packs? or
>> anything else for the  stuff that to me was all part of the OS)
>
> ftp.software.ibm.com:/ps/products/os2/fixes/v4warp

Some other directorys on that site:

MPTS:    /ps/products/mpts/fixes
tcp/ip:    /ps/products/tcpip/fixes
lan:    /ps/products/lan/fixes

For explanations what you at least should use, take a look at:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/os/warp/solutions/and/y2000/step3.html

Lennart


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 16:08:15
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:13
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:05:12, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Big snip of whatever....

See you next week, Kelly!


Mike Trettel        trettel (shift 2) fred (small dot) net

Death to spammers, and so forth.  Fix the reply line to mail me.
Sorry.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Twinco, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             02-Dec-99 09:08:28
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 15:58:13
Subj: Re: How do I install fixpack 11 ?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


josco wrote:
>
> http://www.gt-online.com/~bri/fix.html
> http://members.iquest.net/~dcasey/
> (links above document how I came to this web page below)
>
> http://www.os2voice.org/ez-reference/fixpak.html I followed the directions
> for an install off my hard drive, not floppy disks which takes too long
> while this went quickly.  It was easy. I installed FP11.
>
> The fixpack files came from this ftp site.
>
ftp://service.software.ibm.com/ps/products/os2/fixes/v4warp/english-us/xr_m011/

>
> My advice is to be sure to at least run chkdsk prior to the install to be
> sure not to have any disk errors.  I have my system boot with the HPFS
> automatically checking my drives.  It seems easier than booting off the
> floppies and running chkdsk.  You can modify the CONFIG.SYS file line
> where the cache is installed. You add '+' signs in front of all cached
> disks i.e. +c+d+e
>
> OS/2 Help will give you the correct symantics -- search help for "cache"
> to see the exact syntax.  "Help cache"
>
> After the system is okay and running you can edit and remove the forced
> chkdsk if that slows down boot time.

I suggest installing fixpack 12 rather than fixpack 11.  Fixpack 11 had
a problem with HPFS and required downleveling to fixpack 10 HPFS files
(the fix was on Hobbes.)  I download the floppy files and make the
floppyies with loaddskf.exe and then install them with the corrective
service tool from an OS/2 window.  It's a little more trouble to make
floppies than doing the RSU update but also a little more secure, imo.


>
> -- joseph
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Rime Saad wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > How do I install fixpack 11 ?  I downloaded the fixpack from the IBM FTP
> > site, and the file had the extention ".sh".  I do not know how to
> > install such a file
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             03-Dec-99 08:52:14
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 16:42:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

"Boob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:384146dc$2$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <QU304.32376$[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 06:24
> AM,
>    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > So can Windows 95 users, or haven't you been able to find
> > www.microsoft.com lately?
>
> According to Microsoft's website and the quarterly CD, Win 9x can only be
> made Y2K compliant with "consierations" . This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable
> to me and most of my clients.

So Boob has just proved that he cannot read.  I have suspected this for a
while after reading his posts, but here is conclusive proof.  The Microsoft
web page I check (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/year2k) states Windows 95
all English versions to be compliant (I didn't check foreign languages),
provided you install the y2k patch.

>
> An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
> little bit pregnant. Can't be.
>
It's pretty simple actually Boob.  If an OS won't crash over the Y2K period,
and the majority of it's apps will have no issues, then it is largely
compliant.  It might have some display issues, where one or two infrequently
used apps don't format the date correctly.  That's how it can be inbetween.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Customer of Telecom Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 12:30:06
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 16:42:03
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Stuart Fox wrote:

>
> "Boob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message

> > An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> > non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
> > little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> >
> It's pretty simple actually Boob.  If an OS won't crash over the Y2K period,
> and the majority of it's apps will have no issues, then it is largely
> compliant.

What boob gave you that unacceptable definition of Y2K compliance ?

Y2K was never about OSs crashing Therefore all OSs are largely compliant
which means the concept largely compliant is useless since it describes
the same state as a system that is not compliant.

The worse situation is unprictable behavior, so a system that is largely
complaint as defined by most of the time it is correct - is the worse
case.  Like the worse kinds of bugs to detect - intermittent and errors
approximating real answers making the defects hard to identify and track.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          02-Dec-99 21:06:18
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 16:42:03
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Jim Stuyck
>c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
>...the same thing twice.  Amazing.  I've lost count of the number of times
>Wedgie Boy pounced on someone for posting the identical newsgroup
>article twice.

But, the exact count of how many times he has been a hypocrite doesn't
really matter since it has been well-established that he's a moron and
a hypocrite

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          02-Dec-99 21:04:20
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 16:42:03
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer
>I don't read his posts, he is killfiled here

Where is "here"? Would that happen to be your alleged home PC upon
which you claimed to institute a kill file, but then subsequently read
and directly replied to my messages? Or, would that happen to be the
supposed notebook computer that you allegedly take with you while
traveling, and which is "strictly for business purposes" although you
use it to post personal messages in this newsgroup, including replies
to my posts after you claimed to be using a kill file? Or would that
be the relatives' computers that you've been using while traveling in
lieu of your notebook computer, and which you've claimed that you
wouldn't bother setting up a fill filter upon, but have taken the time
to set up your sig file upon these alleged computers?

In any case, it doesn't matter. You're such an obvious fake and phony
that it's not really worth listening to your implausibly ridiculous,
illogical, clearly contrived "explanations". You may as well go on
lying since no one believes you anyway

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          02-Dec-99 21:08:22
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 16:42:03
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer
>Try buying an Intel based computer without paying
>for Windows.

I do it all of the time. But that's because I'm clearly MUCH more
competent than a phony like you who lies about his alleged experience
in setting up and maintaining computers

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Dec-99 21:09:28
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 16:42:03
Subj: Re: Sorry wrong newgroup.... {It's an old group, dummy!}

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:19:49, K M Hopkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am  so sorry all, I didn't realize this was a 'Bill Gates let me suck
> your ass.oh mighty one.os.win.is the best.advocacy' group. Does anyone
> ever talk about OS/2? Such enormous threads that have been created to
> talk about balderdash.
>

You are erroneously presupposing intelligence and sanity from the
participants of this group (including yours truly).

<Don't listen to him! It's all lies!! Lies, I tell ya!!!!!>

{And why, pray, do you use a Micro$oft O/S to post to this group? You
are unworthy to become a member of Warp Metropolis. (I heard Tim is
better, so I figured, What the heck.)}

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          02-Dec-99 20:39:04
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 19:45:01
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly)

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:54:31, "Steven C. Britton"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

snip
> What have YOU done to bust a union today?
>
> Work better: Work union-free.

Right. Just in time for the "New Millennium", let's get right back to
a hellish Blakeian world of:

    1. Child labour
    2. 66-hour work weeks
    3. Paid at piecework
    4. No job-related injuries (or deaths) compensated
    5. Lockdown factories (remember Triangle Shirtwaist Company?)
    6. No light, heat, or ventilation in the workplace.
    7. Exposure to toxic liquids, solids, and atmospheres.
    8. Random strip searches for stolen company property.
    9. Payment by credit to company store accounts instead of cash.
    10. Zero rights to the value added to raw materials by dangerous
    and difficult physical efforts.

And a long list of other improvements on the natural exploitation and
sub-human treatment those Dashing Bold Mustachioed Capitalist
employers of yours will use, whenever allowed, untrammelled by law or
the evil of simple Collective Bargaining, on the class of sad
disadvantaged peasants who have to come to work in their factories to
put a daily scrap of bread on their families' tables.

--

Good luck,

Buddy

Buddy Donnelly
[e-mail]


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - TampaBay (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Dec-99 21:09:27
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 19:45:01
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:10:27, Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:

[snip]
>
>
> As prize for his award, he can have his own personalized copy of
> Question 32 from the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ:
>

Whoa! You guys have a *FAQ*!?
Kewl!

[snip]


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 15:51:26
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 19:45:01
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Buddy Donnelly wrote:
>
> Right. Just in time for the "New Millennium", let's get right back to
> a hellish Blakeian world of:

<list of issued unrelated to unionism deleted>

> And a long list of other improvements on the natural exploitation and
> sub-human treatment those Dashing Bold Mustachioed Capitalist
> employers of yours will use, whenever allowed, untrammelled by law or
> the evil of simple Collective Bargaining, on the class of sad
> disadvantaged peasants who have to come to work in their factories to
> put a daily scrap of bread on their families' tables.

All of these issues are totally unrelated to unionism.  Unions do not
effectively prevent these things from happening.

All unions do is create an environment of mediocrity and laziness; and pay
the union bosses big bucks to create havoc.

The real truth is that companies that DON'T have unions have better, more
productive workforces, higher wages, and treat their employees better.  If I
owned a corporation, I would do whatever I could to keep a union OUT of my
company.  If one formed, I would do whatever I could to get it decertified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          02-Dec-99 23:07:28
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly)

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:51:52, "Steven C. Britton"
<[e-mail]> wrote:
snipsies


> All unions do is create an environment of mediocrity and laziness;

Had a look lately at the mind-numbing mediocrity of network TeeVee,
and the the vacuous, surface-appeal products cramming your favorite
local Consumerism Merchandise Store?



> and pay the union bosses big bucks to create havoc.

Had a look lately at the phenomenal jump in compensation being paid to
the Corporate Geniuses at the top of the food chain?


In the words of little Oblio, "We see what we want to see, and we hear
what we want to hear."

Neither the workers, nor the unions who represent a few of them, are
responsible for the mountain of exploitative shit that is being poured
on the heads of the "industrialized" North American civilization. But
the police riot you might have seen a little of in Seattle is proof
that the corporate powers will do anything, constitutional or not, to
stomp any little effort to object to it, or to try to influence it for
the human good, into the ground.


But don't bother responding to my note, here. Go and seek out Philip
"Nike" Knight, who must be a longlost spiritual brother, who has built
a $6.47 billion empire using expendable Asian women to glue together
pieces of rubber into shoes they kill for in de ghetto, without
benefit of a single bit of union "interference".



--

Good luck,

Buddy

Buddy Donnelly
[e-mail]


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - TampaBay (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 16:43:07
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Buddy Donnelly wrote:
>
> > All unions do is create an environment of mediocrity and laziness;
>
> Had a look lately at the mind-numbing mediocrity of network TeeVee,
> and the the vacuous, surface-appeal products cramming your favorite
> local Consumerism Merchandise Store?

If people are willing to buy such garbage, then people will produce it.

They will produce it efficiently, I might add.  Competition breeds
efficiency.

Unions bring quality and efficency down to the lowest common denominator
because people are not encouraged to do a good job for fear of making
everyone else look bad.

> > and pay the union bosses big bucks to create havoc.
>
> Had a look lately at the phenomenal jump in compensation being paid to
> the Corporate Geniuses at the top of the food chain?

The "Corporate Geniuses" at the top of the "food chain", as you put it are
there and get paid the big bucks because it's their necks on the line if the
corporation fails: they're the ones who carry the greatest financial risk:
and the fundamental law of risk-taking is that the higher the risk, the
bigger the reward.

Union bosses, on the other hand, don't lose their $100K salaries when the
"workers" go out on strike; they just drive their BMWs to the picket line,
make a little speech, give a media interview with the cheering rentamob
behind them, get back in their BMW and drive to their next event.

Unions aren't for the "workers" any more -- they're political activist
groups trying to ram ridiculous collectivist, socialistic, and totalitarian
practises down the throats of those who REALLY work hard.

> Neither the workers, nor the unions who represent a few of them, are
> responsible for the mountain of exploitative shit that is being poured
> on the heads of the "industrialized" North American civilization.

There is no "mountain of exploitative shit", as you call it.  The first
mistake you make is creating the acrimony between the "workers" and
management.  You don't seem to recognize that management IS work.  The
second mistake you make is that you assume that there is some Big Brother
pointing a gun at workers' heads saying "you WILL work here, or I will shoot
you"; which just doens't happen.

Don't like the job?  Find a better one!

> But  the police riot you might have seen a little of in Seattle is proof
> that the corporate powers will do anything, constitutional or not, to
> stomp any little effort to object to it, or to try to influence it for
> the human good, into the ground.

If the collectivists hadn't rioted, the police would have let them have
their little protest.  Their ideological bankruptcy notwithstanding...

> But don't bother responding to my note, here. Go and seek out Philip
> "Nike" Knight, who must be a longlost spiritual brother, who has built
> a $6.47 billion empire using expendable Asian women to glue together
> pieces of rubber into shoes they kill for in de ghetto, without
> benefit of a single bit of union "interference".

You forget, however, that some places have lower costs of living than
others, and as such, while people don't get paid as much, the VALUE of what
they get paid is equivalent relative to the cost of living.  Eventually,
these "expendable Asian women" as you call them (which, right now, AREN'T
"expendable", or Nike wouldn't be employing them) will be replaced by
automation; like most unskilled labour.

But the bottom line is this: don't like Nike?  DON'T BUY THE FREAKING SHOE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         02-Dec-99 23:38:09
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> central question - looks like we've hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another major soft spot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>>>>....and again.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>>>> ....and again.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>>>> ....and again.

>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

>>> ....and again.

>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> ....and again.


Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

> The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

The same response again for the reader's reference:

> According to your statement, under what conditions
> does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
> functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

Unnecessary, Lucien, again.  I will restore my two simple tests,
however, given that you've never taken them.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

Note again the pat "refusal" to take the two simple tests:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.
]
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
]
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
]
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
]
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
]
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
]
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                03-Dec-99 00:01:08
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: [e-mail] (James Himmelman)

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 03:04:37, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
> > and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
> > released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.
> >
> > Stop being silly.

> Even the developer(s) are telling you that you're wrong.
> Pahh what do they know?

When has David ever been interested in the truth? He hates OS/2 and
its users, and will say anything to cast it in as bad a light as
possible - even if he has to embellish a story or completely make
stuff up. Most people who have read even a few of his posts already
know this.

[[[ James Himmelman - [e-mail] ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         03-Dec-99 00:02:29
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:

> c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...

Still having attribution problems, Stuyck (little boy)?

> ....the same thing twice.

Not my problem, Stuyck (little boy).

> Amazing.  I've lost count of the number of times Wedgie Boy pounced
> on someone for posting the identical newsgroup article twice.

There's a difference between a person posting twice and a machine
posting twice, Stuyck (little boy).

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   02-Dec-99 18:26:19
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-7bUCgq7KjC5q@localhost>,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:10:27, Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >
> > As prize for his award, he can have his own personalized copy of
> > Question 32 from the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ:
> >
>
> Whoa! You guys have a *FAQ*!?
> Kewl!


It's more like a collection of snide remarks, but we call it a FAQ.

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   02-Dec-99 18:30:19
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>

In article <bro14.7933$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Why are anti-OS/2-advocate-advocates posting their B.S. on this
> newsgroup? This is obviously a newsgroup for OS/2 advocates. Read the
> name. If you want to talk about how much OS/2 and its users suck, talk
> about it with your buddies on cswa or cowa or csma or coma or wherever
> your Windows or MacOS or BeOS or whatever advocates reside. I don't mean
> to say anything bad about Windows or MacOS or BeOS, because they all
> have their strengths and weaknesses (and I can't say anything either way
> on BeOS because I haven't used it), as do every OS--but this is a
> newsgroup FOR OS/2 ADVOCATES. It's not a newsgroup FOR FLAMING OS/2
> ADVOCATES.

That would not be appropriate either, because according to your logic,
csma is for Mac advocates, not for anti-OS/2 people.

Maybe what you should be advocating is the creation of an OS/2 analog of
a group like alt.flame.macintosh, if there isn't one already.


Anyway, if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2, how
come you participate in the tholenbot wars?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Cornell University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                02-Dec-99 18:31:14
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: tholenbot <[e-mail]>

In article <0bo14.7925$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:43:44 -0500, tholenbot wrote:
>
> >In article <wvn14.7872$[e-mail]>, Aaron "Ian"
> >Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> >I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.
> >>
> >> An obvious lie.
> >
> >What is "obvious" about it, Aaron?
>
> Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?

I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.  It's too bad
you still don't recognize how your behavior is perceived, Aaron.

--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS-1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 19:50:29
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>:>:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>:>:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
>
><big snip>
>
>: You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
>: and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
>: released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.
>
>: Stop being silly.
>
>Stop avoiding the question and back up your statements.
>
>Since you have reading problems:
>
>HOW HAS THE OS/2 VERSION OF THE OPERA WEB BROWSER HAD A 2 YEAR HEAD START
>ON ANY OF THE OTHER PLATFORMS FOR OPERA???
>
>This is what you claimed.  This is what I disproved.  Stop grandstanding
>and be a man. Explain your statements or admit you were wrong (or ignore
>my post altogether)
>
>BeOS started: 1997
>Epoch started: 1997
>MacOS started: 1997
>Linux started: 1997
>OS/2 started: 1997 (scrapped and started again in 1999)
>Amiga stated: 1997 (srapped altogether)
>Windows started: way before all of this
>
>Now, how does OS/2 have a two year head start on any of these
>platforms???  At worse case OS/2 started at the same time as any of the
>non-windows platforms.  In which case, what the hell is the point of your
>posts.  All this to complain that the previous developers for the OS/2
>version sucked?  What does this prove?
>
>-Jason
>

You are being silly. I told you to stop. Neither Epoch nor Linux had ports
back
in 1997.

Stop being silly.
--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 00:43:20
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>
>
> > Time to ask a simple question: how does this monopoly keep a competitor
> > from forming.  All that is needed is a mechanism.
>
> A monopoly as defined by US law is a company so dominant in its industry
> segment that it can force its will on virtually the entire market segment.

So how, exactly, does Microsoft force its will?

Here's a hint, US LAW DEFINING MONOPOLIES is the entire problem!  I'm not
trying to argue that MS is acting legally, but rather that its actions
should never have been illegal in the first place.

> MS forces computer buyers to pay for Windows whether the customer wants to
> or not.

MS doesn't force computer buyers to do anything.  Microsoft sells its code.
People buy it.  This is called a free exchange.

> A monopoly as defined in US law is a company which can set prices
> regardless of actual cost or value.  Microsoft still charges the same price
> for its products as the day they were released.

Why haven't they skyrocketed?  Why doesn't Microsoft charge $4.4 million
dollars (or all your income, whichever comes first) for each copy?

> A monopoly as defined in US law is a company which can force competitors
> out of business

Again, Microsoft can't stop a competitor from existing.  They can't have
them arrested or anything.

Netscape can, of course.

> A monopoly under US law is a company which can force third parties to
> conform to its will

Again, all MS can do is sign a contract.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Dec-99 01:09:17
  To: All                                               02-Dec-99 20:44:17
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 29 Nov 1999 10:47:08 GMT, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:52:49, David Sutherland
><sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:17:13 -0500, Bob Germer
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 08:13 AM,
>> >   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:
>> >
>> >
>> >> And you can't seem to get that kill-filter figured out numerous days
>> >> after you claimed to have already set it up. And you expect us to
>> >> believe that you setup and maintain computers? Riiiiiiiiight.
>> >> Suuuuuuure. Yep. We believe it.
>> >
>> >I am using another's computer at the moment while I am visiting some of my
>> >grandchildren. I am not about to setup killfiles on other people's
>> >machines.
>> >
>>
>> Yet you took the time to set up your .sig on this other persons
>> machine, and got it character perfect
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Hmmm.....odd that you wouldn't take the time to set up a kill filter
>> which you can easily reverse, but you *do* take the time to set up
>> your signature file *exactly* as on your usual machine.
>>
>
>He could have used that computer before and left a textfile with his
>sig.
>Or he has a floppy with his .sig with him...
>
>Nah, that couldn't be it. It's far too simple.
>

It *could* be that simple - bu then again, removing a single entry
from a killfile is every bit as simple yet he refuses to do
that....and indeed lacks the self-restaraint necessary to simply not
read the post.

Bob's explanations become more and more contrived the more desperate
he becomes to prove what a techno-wiz he is.  Frankly, I doubt his
words now.


>Karel Jansens
>jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
>=======================================================
>"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
>Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
>(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
>=======================================================


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 19:56:10
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:07
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>>:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>:>: In article <[e-mail]>,
>>:>: [e-mail] says...
>>:>:>http://www.opera.com/alt_os.html#os2
>>:>:>OS/2 Current status: +10 out of 20
>>:>:>Linux:  +11 out of 20
>>:>:>MacOS:  +12 out of 20
>>:>:>
>>:>:>We hope to release the OS/2 version of V4.0 soon after the Windows
>>:>:>version.
>>:>:>
>>:>
>>:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
>>:>
>>:>How did the OS/2 version have a 2 year head start David?  In fact,
>>:>besides the amiga team, did Opera have to start over because of the
>>:>developers on any other operating systems besides OS/2 and Amiga?  Fact
>>:>is, the OS/2 had the worse situation surrounding it's developement, yet
>>:>is still coming along nicely.
>>:>
>>:>I guess it isn't easy always being the negative voice.
>>:>
>>
>>: You should guess that it isn't easy being blindly optimistic. Project
Magic
>>: started in what 1997? And despite the head start just about every port is
ahead
>>: of the OS/2 version.
>>
>>: You guys have amazing revisionist abilities.
>>
>>And you have a not so amazing ability to duck the question.  Of course,
>>when you are flat out wrong, what else can you do?  Can you show me how
>>the OS/2 version had a 2 year head start an any other platform for opera???
>>
>>No you can't, in fact the OS/2 version got scrapped once because of the
>>developement team, and got restarted in 1999.  Your comments make even
>>less sense when you consider they were talking about the version 4
>>browser.  How could OS/2 have a two year head start on Windows for the
>>version 4 browser when it's a port???  They weren't even working on
>>version 4 two years ago!!!
>>
>>-Jason
>>
>
>You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
>and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
>released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.
>
>Stop being silly.
>
>

Please replace Linux with BeOS. Linux MAY have had a port, but certainly
didn't
possess the urgency in 1997 that it has today.

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               02-Dec-99 20:24:29
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]> said:

>The "Corporate Geniuses" at the top of the "food chain", as you put it
>are there and get paid the big bucks because it's their necks on the line
>if the corporation fails: they're the ones who carry the greatest
>financial risk: and the fundamental law of risk-taking is that the higher
>the risk, the bigger the reward.

Baloney. Every VP I've ever seen "fired" at GE and elsewhere walked off
with millions on the way out. There is no risk. --And in most cases they
left because the risk they took was to cook the numbers for next two guys
up the food chain. Lets also accept that fact that people don't work their
way up to that level, they are pulled up. So the risk is not nearly as
real as you want to think.

BTW, I can't think of corporation that failed except when the big bucks
guys didn't know what the business was about, or refused to accept changes
in the market.


>Union bosses, on the other hand, don't lose their $100K salaries when the
>"workers" go out on strike; they just drive their BMWs to the picket
>line, make a little speech, give a media interview with the cheering
>rentamob behind them, get back in their BMW and drive to their next
>event.

Name the bosses that get 100K, and the rentamobs. -- In the US that would
be a violation of federal law and would be verifiable -- that is unless
your making it up and spouting off.


>Unions aren't for the "workers" any more -- they're political activist
>groups trying to ram ridiculous collectivist, socialistic, and
>totalitarian practises down the throats of those who REALLY work hard.

Examples; what are these totalitarian practices

<snip> the rest of the rightwing crap... as we call it in the US



_____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               02-Dec-99 19:36:15
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

>> And a long list of other improvements on the natural exploitation and
>> sub-human treatment those Dashing Bold Mustachioed Capitalist
>> employers of yours will use, whenever allowed, untrammelled by law or
>> the evil of simple Collective Bargaining, on the class of sad
>> disadvantaged peasants who have to come to work in their factories to
>> put a daily scrap of bread on their families' tables.

>All of these issues are totally unrelated to unionism.  Unions do not
>effectively prevent these things from happening.

Are you 15 years old or just stupid?   Dou you really think GM and the
rest asked for the OSHA regulations out of goodness and concern for
workers?

>All unions do is create an environment of mediocrity and laziness; and
>pay the union bosses big bucks to create havoc.

And all non-union shops are productive, intelligent and well run. That is
why companies like GE have downsized the non-union staff by 80% in the
last 15 years.


>The real truth is that companies that DON'T have unions have better, more
>productive workforces, higher wages, and treat their employees better.
>If I owned a corporation, I would do whatever I could to keep a union OUT
>of my company.  If one formed, I would do whatever I could to get it
>decertified.

And you would not survive. Not because of unions, but you're too stupid to
treat people as human beings -- which is what gave rise to unions in the
first place.

Don't know about Canada, but in the US someone with your attitude could
expect to have it readjusted.  _____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               02-Dec-99 19:29:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

>>Try buying an Intel based computer without paying
>>for Windows.

>I do it all of the time. But that's because I'm clearly MUCH more
>competent than a phony like you who lies about his alleged experience in
>setting up and maintaining computers

Please tell us where to buy say IBM Thinkpads or any
tier-one laptop without Windozs?  Better yet, tell us where to get a
refund for the copy of windoze that comes on a machine. And the license
says I can get one -- but just try.

All you MS Munchkins ignore that one. How come? Could it be that it goes
to the heart of the lies you live in.


_____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Dec-99 01:36:28
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 3 Dec 1999 00:02:58 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

>Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
>
>> c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
>
>Still having attribution problems, Stuyck (little boy)?
>
>> ....the same thing twice.
>
>Not my problem, Stuyck (little boy).
>
>> Amazing.  I've lost count of the number of times Wedgie Boy pounced
>> on someone for posting the identical newsgroup article twice.
>
>There's a difference between a person posting twice and a machine
>posting twice, Stuyck (little boy).

Hey Tholen, does your employer know how you spend most of their time?

Just curious.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          03-Dec-99 01:01:05
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Stephenson)

In article <38466f30$5$obot$[e-mail]>
       [e-mail] "Bob Germer" writes:

> I presume King Billy refers to President Bubba, not Chief Thief
> Billy Gates. [...]

Nooo, I was having a fit of irony.  Perhaps he needs a less grand
title.  How does "The Squire of Redmond" grab you?

> And if perchance the other Billy should come to visit, I
> suggest you take a lesson from your history and do to him what
> the Campbells did to the MacDonalds at Glencoe a few decades
> back.

Wouldn't that call for me to go sleep under his roof?  There are
some thresholds one hesitates to cross.  Contemplate the hazards
of visiting a cyberhouse controlled by M$ systems...  *shudder*
--
Andrew Stephenson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: DNS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Dec-99 01:17:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:39:28 -0500, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>On <[e-mail]>, on 11/28/99 at 10:52 PM,
>   David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk> said:
>
>
>> Hmmm.....odd that you wouldn't take the time to set up a kill filter
>> which you can easily reverse, but you *do* take the time to set up your
>> signature file *exactly* as on your usual machine.
>
>With the mail program I use and which is on my daughter's machine as well,
>the killfile covers all users. Each user, can, however have a custom
>signature file.
>

So why do you continue to read Jeff's mails if they cause you such
offence?  Is it really so difficult to remove the killfile entry, and
even more to the point, does your daughter follow os.2advocacy to the
point that messing with her killfile is going to ruin her enjoyment of
said group?

Sorry bob, but I find your explanations a little desperate.


>> >I leave that to illigitimate anal retentives like you.
>
>>  First Bob, what kind of anal retentive would go to so much trouble with
>> his .sig?   Or maybe you didn't, which leads to:
>
>Trouble? I merely take a floppy with my setup for Ice with me when I go to
>visit relatives. For Windows users, that would be a very difficult task.
>For OS/2 users it is not.
>

Everywhere you go you carry a floppy with your .sig on it - in my
opinion that makes you a little obsessive - why does it matter if your
sig is character perfect?  Do you live for these newsgroups or what?

>Moreover, I can access my system from anywhere in the world where I have a
>computer, a modem, and a phone line. When I do that, I can download any
>file on my office network other than open Notes databases. Those I can
>download if the guest computer has a Notes client via accessing my Notes
>Server since I always carry a notes id file with me.
>

Gee, that's great...but it in no way gives credence to your claims
about "anal retentives" (when you seem fairly obsessed with character
perfection in your .sig, and god forbid that you should be cut off
from the news groups when you are on holiday...), nor does it
contradict the blindingly obvious fact that killfiling Glatt in
os2.advocacy will make zero difference to your daughters browsing
habits.

>> Second, the evidence suggests that you are spinning some folks a yarn,
>> Bob.
>
>Only for those too ignorant of the capabilities of computers to properly
>multi-task because they run an outdated 16 bit operating system with a
>fake 32 bit task switching menu program which crashes regularly if they
>attempt to use the so-called multitasking ability of their system.

Yeah, right, sure Bob.  So tell me Bob - what OS do I spend 90% of my
time in?  Which do I make my living from?

Next time try getting facts on your side before spouting off - you
only make yourself look stupid.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           02-Dec-99 08:22:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: IBM Support for os/2

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-SkUDF7V0CEPr@localhost>, on 12/01/99 at 02:42 PM,
   [e-mail] (Richard A Crane) said:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:25:12, Bob Germer
> <[e-mail]> wrote in part:

> My general mood was not improved by spending what seemed to  be an
> exessive amount of time trying to find the IBM site  that has all the
> y2k fixes for all parts of OS/2 Warp (base  system fix packs, device
> driver packs, TCP/IP fix packs, are there do I need MPTS fix packs? or
> anything else for the  stuff that to me was all part of the OS)

 ftp.software.ibm.com:/ps/products/os2/fixes/v4warp

I don't know if you use the English-US or English-UK version of Warp but
all languages are there. That site will lead you to the Device Driver Pack
as well if you go up to a higher subdirectory and work down. Apply FP 12
(actually 8 or 7 also made Warp Y2K compliant if memory serves) and DD
Pack 1 if your hardware needs it and you will be Y2K compliant assuming
you are using Netscape 4.6.

> PS can anyone post a comprehensible list of what
> upgrades/what install order are needed to convert a stand
> alone but using the internet, Warp 4 system needs to ensure  y2k
> compliance?
> Richard A Crane
> Barrister & Solicitor
> slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
> octa4.net.au
> OR rcrane AT attglobal.net


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Dec-99 01:32:14
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 21:04:41 GMT, [e-mail] (Jeff
Glatt) wrote:

>>Bob Germer
>>I don't read his posts, he is killfiled here
>
>Where is "here"? Would that happen to be your alleged home PC upon
>which you claimed to institute a kill file, but then subsequently read
>and directly replied to my messages? Or, would that happen to be the
>supposed notebook computer that you allegedly take with you while
>traveling, and which is "strictly for business purposes" although you
>use it to post personal messages in this newsgroup, including replies
>to my posts after you claimed to be using a kill file? Or would that
>be the relatives' computers that you've been using while traveling in
>lieu of your notebook computer, and which you've claimed that you
>wouldn't bother setting up a fill filter upon, but have taken the time
>to set up your sig file upon these alleged computers?
>
>In any case, it doesn't matter. You're such an obvious fake and phony
>that it's not really worth listening to your implausibly ridiculous,
>illogical, clearly contrived "explanations". You may as well go on
>lying since no one believes you anyway


His multiple contradictory "heres" do seem to cast doubt upon
eveything he says, don't they?  First you're not killfiled because of
the machine he's on, then you are, then he's got a floppy, then he
doesn't - it's  all very....odd.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 21:30:16
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:
: In article <bro14.7933$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
: <[e-mail]> wrote:

:> Why are anti-OS/2-advocate-advocates posting their B.S. on this
:> newsgroup? This is obviously a newsgroup for OS/2 advocates. Read the
:> name. If you want to talk about how much OS/2 and its users suck, talk
:> about it with your buddies on cswa or cowa or csma or coma or wherever
:> your Windows or MacOS or BeOS or whatever advocates reside. I don't mean
:> to say anything bad about Windows or MacOS or BeOS, because they all
:> have their strengths and weaknesses (and I can't say anything either way
:> on BeOS because I haven't used it), as do every OS--but this is a
:> newsgroup FOR OS/2 ADVOCATES. It's not a newsgroup FOR FLAMING OS/2
:> ADVOCATES.

: That would not be appropriate either, because according to your logic,
: csma is for Mac advocates, not for anti-OS/2 people.

True, but you could talk about how MacOS is better then OS/2.

: Maybe what you should be advocating is the creation of an OS/2 analog of
: a group like alt.flame.macintosh, if there isn't one already.

I don't think that many people actually care about OS/2 enough to
substain an entire flaming newsgroup.  The only reason flaming survives
here is that certain people enjoy trying to push OS/2 advocates buttons
and start flamewars.

: Anyway, if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2, how
: come you participate in the tholenbot wars?

Actually it's a newsgroup for Flaming and Supporting OS/2, this is the
description from the news server.  But it's not a group for flaming OS/2
advocates.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 21:32:22
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Mike Trettel <[e-mail]> wrote:
: On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:05:12, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>
: wrote:

: Big snip of whatever....

: See you next week, Kelly!

Or whoever he decides to reinvent himself as.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 21:44:05
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>,
: [e-mail] says...
:>
:>You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
:>and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
:>released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.
:>
:>Stop being silly.
:>
:>

: Please replace Linux with BeOS. Linux MAY have had a port, but certainly
didn't
: possess the urgency in 1997 that it has today.

: --
: ---------------------------------------
: David H. McCoy
: dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
: ---------------------------------------

Stop being silly.  Now all of a sudden urgency is an excuse?  The OS/2
port has less urgency then it ever had and yet is moving faster then it
ever has.

Stop being silly.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 21:39:25
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
:>
:>:>:>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
:>:>:>: WOW! And the OS/2 version only had a two year head start!
:>
:><big snip>
:>
:>: You are being silly. The OS/2 version of Opera started in 1997. It went
nowhere
:>: and now a new team has stepped up to bat. In the meantime even the BeOS
:>: released a beta and both Linux and the Mac are ahead.
:>
:>: Stop being silly.
:>
:>Stop avoiding the question and back up your statements.
:>
:>Since you have reading problems:
:>
:>HOW HAS THE OS/2 VERSION OF THE OPERA WEB BROWSER HAD A 2 YEAR HEAD START
:>ON ANY OF THE OTHER PLATFORMS FOR OPERA???
:>
:>This is what you claimed.  This is what I disproved.  Stop grandstanding
:>and be a man. Explain your statements or admit you were wrong (or ignore
:>my post altogether)
:>
:>BeOS started: 1997
:>Epoch started: 1997
:>MacOS started: 1997
:>Linux started: 1997
:>OS/2 started: 1997 (scrapped and started again in 1999)
:>Amiga stated: 1997 (srapped altogether)
:>Windows started: way before all of this
:>
:>Now, how does OS/2 have a two year head start on any of these
:>platforms???  At worse case OS/2 started at the same time as any of the
:>non-windows platforms.  In which case, what the hell is the point of your
:>posts.  All this to complain that the previous developers for the OS/2
:>version sucked?  What does this prove?
:>
:>-Jason
:>

: You are being silly. I told you to stop. Neither Epoch nor Linux had ports
back
: in 1997.

: Stop being silly.

Stop being difficult

Show me how the OS/2 version had a two year head start on any
other platform for Opera.

You can't, because you are wrong.  This is why you keep ignoring the
question.  Because you made a really stupid statement and now you have no
where to go but avoid the question.  It's funny to see that you are so
little of a man that you can't eaither ignore my post or admit that you
are wrong.

Stop being difficult

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                02-Dec-99 17:42:07
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Very Special Report coming soon  2035

From: "bzab" <[e-mail]>

Like in that "Matrix" movie.   :-)

--
-+* Brian *+-

VB 5 (Ent & CCE)
VB 3, 4 (Std)
VB 1 (Pro DOS)
And I still use QBasic :-)


"John A. Grant" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:81n4re$[e-mail]...
> [e-mail] wrote in message <81l4ue$ili$[e-mail]>...
> >This is not spam. You are receiving this because you have sent
> >>me information about your program or opportunity and I
>
>     :) :) :) Sigh. If only we could harness idiots for fuel.
> --
> John A. Grant  * I speak only for myself *  (remove 'z' to reply)
> Radiation Geophysics, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa
> If you followup, please do NOT e-mail me a copy: I will read it here
>
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      03-Dec-99 02:46:24
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (None Of Your Business)

BTW, I can't think of anyone I know who's been killed by a gun.

[e-mail] wrote in <38471bea$1$yrgbherq$[e-mail]>:
>BTW, I can't think of corporation that failed except when the big bucks
>guys didn't know what the business was about, or refused to accept changes
>in the market.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: None Dammit (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 21:46:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Sorry wrong newgroup....

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

K M Hopkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
: I am  so sorry all, I didn't realize this was a 'Bill Gates let me suck
: your ass.oh mighty one.os.win.is the best.advocacy' group. Does anyone
: ever talk about OS/2? Such enormous threads that have been created to
: talk about balderdash.

: Kent.just my two cents.com

You would be better off trying the non advocacy groups for

comp.os.os2.*

You might have a chance of finding intelligent life there.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 18:56:16
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Glenn Davies <[e-mail]>

On 3 Dec 1999 00:43:40 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

>As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:

>> MS forces computer buyers to pay for Windows whether the customer wants to
>> or not.
>
>MS doesn't force computer buyers to do anything.  Microsoft sells its code.
>People buy it.  This is called a free exchange.
>

Under MS's per-processor licensing agreements, which the '95 consent
decree eliminated, customers paid for DOS and Windows even if they
didn't want those products. This was commonly referred to the "DOS
tax" on computers.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: via Internet Direct - http://www.mydirect.com/ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          03-Dec-99 02:56:10
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>Aaron Dimsdale
>>It's not a newsgroup FOR FLAMING OS/2 ADVOCATES.

>Eric Bennett
>if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2

But it isn't. Aaron has obviously not read the charter for this
newsgroup. It specifically mentions that it's for flaming of OS/2. His
initial assumption is incorrect, and therefore the remainder of his
post has no relevancy

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      02-Dec-99 19:18:08
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>


"josco" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> >
> > "Boob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>
> > > An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> > > non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
> > > little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> > >
> > It's pretty simple actually Boob.  If an OS won't crash over the Y2K
period,
> > and the majority of it's apps will have no issues, then it is largely
> > compliant.
>
> What boob gave you that unacceptable definition of Y2K compliance ?
>

That would be Boob Gerbil.

> Y2K was never about OSs crashing Therefore all OSs are largely compliant
> which means the concept largely compliant is useless since it describes
> the same state as a system that is not compliant.
>
> The worse situation is unprictable behavior, so a system that is largely
> complaint as defined by most of the time it is correct - is the worse
> case.  Like the worse kinds of bugs to detect - intermittent and errors
> approximating real answers making the defects hard to identify and track.
>
>
>


--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                02-Dec-99 19:22:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Werner Knoll <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] wrote:
>
> >> And a long list of other improvements on the natural exploitation and
> >> sub-human treatment those Dashing Bold Mustachioed Capitalist
> >> employers of yours will use, whenever allowed, untrammelled by law or
> >> the evil of simple Collective Bargaining, on the class of sad
> >> disadvantaged peasants who have to come to work in their factories to
> >> put a daily scrap of bread on their families' tables.
>
> >All of these issues are totally unrelated to unionism.  Unions do not
> >effectively prevent these things from happening.
>
> Are you 15 years old or just stupid?   Dou you really think GM and the
> rest asked for the OSHA regulations out of goodness and concern for
> workers?
>
> >All unions do is create an environment of mediocrity and laziness; and
> >pay the union bosses big bucks to create havoc.
>
> And all non-union shops are productive, intelligent and well run. That is
> why companies like GE have downsized the non-union staff by 80% in the
> last 15 years.
>
> >The real truth is that companies that DON'T have unions have better, more
> >productive workforces, higher wages, and treat their employees better.
> >If I owned a corporation, I would do whatever I could to keep a union OUT
> >of my company.  If one formed, I would do whatever I could to get it
> >decertified.
>
> And you would not survive. Not because of unions, but you're too stupid to
> treat people as human beings -- which is what gave rise to unions in the
> first place.
>
> Don't know about Canada, but in the US someone with your attitude could
> expect to have it readjusted.  _____________
> Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

In all likelihood Britton is a born again Christian who is acting as a
foreskin for his masters.

Misfit's like him take advantage of what unions have been fighting for
and the only reason he is happy because he can sit on his masters lap.

Werner Knoll

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Knoll's (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   02-Dec-99 16:00:20
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]>

DOS with a mouse extension? This is the product that beat the Mac to market?
Give me a break. And this is proof?

This is a sad day win Windows advocates claim Windows was out before the
Mac. Have you no dignity?

--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH

CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?

"Lord Foul" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:383dce64$0$[e-mail]...
> R. Tang <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:81i9pu$oka$[e-mail]...
> > Mr. Biddlesworth <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >So the code of Windows 1.0 (or its prototype) plausibly predated MacOS
1.0 by a year
> > >(unless LisaOS and MacOS 1.0 were virtually identical???).
> >
> > No, it does not. Not if you can do math.
> >
> > --
> > -Roger Tang, [e-mail], Artistic Director  PC Theatre
>
>
> You should open your mind, face facts, and quit believing Job's
propaganda.
>
> I have >>proof<< that Microsoft Windows 1.0 was running in 1983.
>
> Read this 1983 Byte article:
http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/win1983.html
> It's so old that Apple's Lisa is mentioned but not Macintosh.
>
> So that debunks the myth that Windows >>originated<< was an imitation of
Mac.
>
> History lesson is over.  Class, dismissed.
>
>
> Mr. Biddlesworth
> (not speaking for Intel Corporation)
>
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             03-Dec-99 17:13:17
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

josco <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> >
> > "Boob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>
> > > An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint or
> > > non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like being a
> > > little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> > >
> > It's pretty simple actually Boob.  If an OS won't crash over the Y2K
period,
> > and the majority of it's apps will have no issues, then it is largely
> > compliant.
>
> What boob gave you that unacceptable definition of Y2K compliance ?

So define Y2K compliance in words a simple Windows lemming can understand.
And besides, the definition I gave above was how an OS could be partially
Y2K compliant, and still be OK.

>
> Y2K was never about OSs crashing Therefore all OSs are largely compliant
> which means the concept largely compliant is useless since it describes
> the same state as a system that is not compliant.
>
> The worse situation is unprictable behavior, so a system that is largely
> complaint as defined by most of the time it is correct - is the worse
> case.  Like the worse kinds of bugs to detect - intermittent and errors
> approximating real answers making the defects hard to identify and track.
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Internet Group Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:02:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-7bUCgq7KjC5q@localhost>,
> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:10:27, Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > As prize for his award, he can have his own personalized copy of
> > > Question 32 from the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ:
> > >
> >
> > Whoa! You guys have a *FAQ*!?
> > Kewl!
>
> It's more like a collection of snide remarks, but we call it a FAQ.

A digest of sorts?  How infantile.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:04:15
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> Anyway, if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2, how
> come you participate in the tholenbot wars?

What alleged "tholenbot wars", tholenbot?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:05:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >>Aaron Dimsdale
> >>It's not a newsgroup FOR FLAMING OS/2 ADVOCATES.
>
> >Eric Bennett
> >if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2
>
> But it isn't. Aaron has obviously not read the charter for this
> newsgroup. It specifically mentions that it's for flaming of OS/2. His
> initial assumption is incorrect, and therefore the remainder of his
> post has no relevancy

Besides, Eric Bennett is a proven liar, and therefore can be dismissed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 04:49:21
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:48:57 GMT, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>Kelly Robinson
>>These OS/2 people are so desperate they'll attack anyone who's trying to
tell
>>the truth.
>
>OS/2 Advocacy has always hinged upon "attacking the mainstream",
>whether it be developers who support Windows, or Windows users (ie,
>"lemmings" in OS/2 Advocacy terminology), or journalists who write
>favorable things about anything related to Windows (or commit the
>unspeakable crime of merely failing to praise OS/2 in every magazine).
>That's one big reason why OS/2 Advocacy has, by and large, been a
>complete and utter failure.

I say you're full of crap. Go look at some MacOS users out there (I
don't mean to say anything bad about MacOS advocates--true active
advocates of MacOS seem not to be as bad as J. Random MacOS User) and
you'll see things worse than you've ever seen in "OS/2 Advocacy". I've
seen many MacOS users circle the wagons and attack anyone who says
anything bad about their beloved system. (What blasphemy!)

>Historically, OS/2 Advocates have been viewed as a "cult of kooks" by
>the mainstream, and that was a self-inflicted image problem. Dave
>Whittle, founder of Team OS/2, even publically warned against what he
>saw as too much fanaticism and negativity in OS/2 Advocacy.
>Regardless, his warning fell upon deaf ears, and OS/2 Advocacy has
>reaped what it has sown

Again I say you're full of crap. What a hypocrite you are, along with
all the other "Gates Is God, Worship Gates" Windows advocates posting to
this newsgroup. You say that OS/2 users attack anyone who tries to tell
the truth about OS/2--yet you actually take time to subscribe to an OS/2
Advocacy newsgroup to insult OS/2 Advocates. Funny how you constantly
talk about how much OS/2 sucks and its users suck and how its advocates
are bastards who kill everything that puts a dent in the paint of
OS/2...

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:09:16
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Sorry wrong newgroup.... {It's an old group, dummy!}

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> You are erroneously presupposing intelligence and sanity from the
> participants of this group (including yours truly).

On what basis do you make this claim, Karel?

> <Don't listen to him! It's all lies!! Lies, I tell ya!!!!!>

Illogical.

> {And why, pray, do you use a Micro$oft O/S to post to this group? You
> are unworthy to become a member of Warp Metropolis.

Taking inappropriate citation of OS's in message header lessons from Tim
"Master of Inappropriate Citation of OS's in Message Headers" Martin?

> (I heard Tim is better, so I figured, What the heck.)}

What you figured is irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:16:00
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <wvn14.7872$[e-mail]>, Aaron "Ian"
> Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > >I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.
> >
> > An obvious lie.
>
> What is "obvious" about it, Aaron?

Don't you know, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:18:26
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451514

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <_on14.7852$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Dec 1999 09:21:59 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > >Does Dimsdale even realize that "tholenbot" is Eric Bennett?  Here's
> > >today's digest:
> >
> > Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.
>
> Typical invective.

What's allegedly typical about it?

> Pott is TholenBot Pro.

On what basis do you make this claim?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  02-Dec-99 00:45:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: User interface learning curves

From: "Christopher Smith" <[e-mail]>

"ZnU" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <[e-mail]>, "Christopher
> Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > "josco" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, LP wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > After using the MacOS for over 8 years.. with merely one day of NT
> > > > under
> > my
> > > > belt.. NT was far more productive for me. No more rampant crashes..
> > > > NT
> > > > empowered me to do work that I was never able to do on the Mac.
> > > >
> > > > In the end, that is all that matters.
> > >
> > > BSOD is a short hand for Blue Screen of Death.  It has been coined to
> > > describe how NT crashes and is often blamed on device drives, not the
> > > OS.
> > > Still it is a fatal crash.
> > >
> > > In the end, that is all that matters.
> >
> > Not many OSes can survive driver failures.
>
> Of course any time a Mac crashes because of a bad driver it's a horrible
> unacceptable thing.

Really ?  Says who ?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Queensland (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:17:17
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <0bo14.7925$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:43:44 -0500, tholenbot wrote:
> >
> > >In article <wvn14.7872$[e-mail]>, Aaron "Ian"
> > >Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.
> > >>
> > >> An obvious lie.
> > >
> > >What is "obvious" about it, Aaron?
> >
> > Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?
>
> I see you didn't answer the question.

Incorrect.

> How predictable.

Logic is quite predictable.

> It's too bad you still don't recognize how your behavior is perceived,
> Aaron.

Perceived by who, Eric?  You?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 06:18:03
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Dimsdale Digest ]I[ - The Search for Spock

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 01:01:54 -0500, Marty wrote:

>Apparently Aaron's dirty glasses have not been enough of a hindrance to him
to
>prevent his continued spreading of FUD,

What alleged "FUD", Marty?

>lies,

What alleged "lies", Marty?

>and illogical, inaccurate

Balderdash, Marty.

>statements.  In spite of all of the time he spends tending his Balderdash
>garden,

Illogical, as it is Pott's garden, not mine.

>he still makes the time to lie

Balderdash, Marty.

>and play infantile games on

How ironic, cmoing from the Master of Infantile Gameplay.

>UseNet.
>Here's today's digest:

Prove it, if you think you can.

>1> Please note that this is not Part 2 of the Dimsdale Digest. You
>1> wouldn't know that, of course, because the many Dimsdale Digests were,
>1> all but one, before you ever joined these threads.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>1> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>1> How ironic, coming from someone who is at it again.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>1> If I knew, I would not have asked, Marty.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>1> I cleaned them before posting my reply to Joe, Marty.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>2> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>2> Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of the
>2> crew all were aiming at me.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>2> It's Pott's garden, not mine, and I cleaned my glasses a few posts ago.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>3> Several posts ago, I cleaned them and your posts looked exactly the same
>3> afterwards.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>3> Several posts ago, I cleaned my glasses and your posts looked exactly
>3> the same afterwards.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>3> There is no evidence that it is my Balderdash garden, only that I am
>3> tending it.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>3> Unnecessary.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.
>3> Balderdash, Marty.
>3> An obvious lie.

Irrelevant.

>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>4> Darn glasses, I better start cleaning again.
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

>5> Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?
>
>"Balderdash."
>
>I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

Balderdash, Marty.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 06:19:01
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451501^-999999999

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:57:39 -0500, Joe Malloy wrote:

>Tholen's still at his infantile game.  Here everything of value Tholen has
>ever written:
>
>[null, void, and codswallop]
>
>Thanks for reading your guide to instant Tholen!

Balderdash, Joe.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 01:38:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451501^-999999999

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Aaron Dimsdale wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:57:39 -0500, Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> >Tholen's still at his infantile game.  Here everything of value Tholen has
> >ever written:
> >
> >[null, void, and codswallop]
> >
> >Thanks for reading your guide to instant Tholen!
>
> Balderdash, Joe.

Still too busy tending your Balderdash garden to form a logical argument?  No
surprise there.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 22:51:14
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Timberwoof <[e-mail]>

In article <LhJ14.38013$[e-mail]>, "Brent
Davies" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Timberwoof <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> [snip]
> |
> | "Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor
> | functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after
> | the Year 2000.
> |
> | In particular,
> |
> |        Rule 1: No value for current date will cause any interruption in
> | operation
> |        Rule 2: Date-based functionality must behave consistently for
> | dates prior to, during and after Year 2000
> |        Rule 3: In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any
> | date must be specified either explicitly or by
> |        unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules
> |        Rule 4: Year 2000 must be recognised as a leap year."
> |
>
> I don't understand this thread.  Are you arguing about the
> concept of "largely compliant"?  If so, I would think that
> you're nit-picking a little bit.  I forgot the exact date, but
> Windows 95 is said to be totally unaffected by date field
> deficiencies until the mid 2030s (I think the number was
> 2035).  Will there actually be people using Win95 40
> years after its release?  Remember that the Windows
> life cycle is much shorter than that of DOS or Unix.
>
> Then again, I read this thing about 2035 a while ago.
> The most recent patches may bring it into full
> compliance.
>
> I would go so far as to say that Windows 95/98/NT,
> with the correct patches, are all fully compliant.  If an
> application keeps its own time and isn't able to handle
> a date after Dec. 31, 1999, I wouldn't blame the OS
> for that.  That situation doesn't make any particular OS
> any less Y2K ready.

The person I replied to seemed to think that "Y2k Compliant" means "Not
crashing on New Years Eve." If a program uses only a 2-digit date field,
then it is likely to have some kind of y2k problem.

There was even a 1999 problem: Some programmers used the code "99" to
mean "forever," as in lifetime subscriptions. Y2k problems have already
happened: credit cards that were to expire in 00, 01, 02, or later were
rejected as already expired. A person born in 1918 was denied social
security benefits because his birth date was encoded as 18 which was
assumed to mean 2018.

So just not crashing is hardly enough to certify a system as compliant.

--
Timberwoof; mroeder<at>best<dot>com; http://www.best.com/~mroeder
Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider, and
not your ordinary noncomformist. "You may have the right to say that,
but I will defend to the death my right to disagree."

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Infernosoft (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:37:04
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest Episode IV- A New Hope

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie.  The evidence was
nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified in hypocritically
accusing me of lying.  A rather dull and typical development in Dave's
infantile game.  Here are more issues that Dave is too embarrassed to address
with his excuse for "logic":

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Truly amazing that Marty started off his posting with a lie.  The
> evidence was right there in the first line of his quoted material,
> which was:
>
> ] 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough,
>
> yet he claimed that the article wasn't about me.

Note the lack of evidence.  What alleged claim?  Which alleged article?

> An interesting development in Marty's "infantile game".  Here's today's
> digest:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

> 1> Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a
> 1> response to any articles posted to or about him.  As usual, he's
> 1> trying to blame me for something he caused.  If we're lucky and I
> 1> call him on the irrelevant cross-posting, he may even pull the old
> 1> "aim at the base of the flames" argument out from retirement.  And
> 1> one can only wonder whether his exchanges with Eric Bennett are
> 1> indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been playing on
> 1> me.  Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
> 1> had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another
> 1> thread in COOA and consists of several thousand lines):

Note: no response

> 1> [Note:  Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that
> 1> were not intended for him in this infantile "digest".  Just further
> 1> evidence of his nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further
> 1> evidence were needed)]

Note: no response

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:39:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

David Sutherland wrote:
>
> On 3 Dec 1999 00:02:58 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
> wrote:
>
> >Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
> >
> >> c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
> >
> >Still having attribution problems, Stuyck (little boy)?
> >
> >> ....the same thing twice.
> >
> >Not my problem, Stuyck (little boy).
> >
> >> Amazing.  I've lost count of the number of times Wedgie Boy pounced
> >> on someone for posting the identical newsgroup article twice.
> >
> >There's a difference between a person posting twice and a machine
> >posting twice, Stuyck (little boy).
>
> Hey Tholen, does your employer know how you spend most of their time?
>
> Just curious.

That's proprietary information, David.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:28:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451515

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Haakmat is now back, which gives me the opportunity to take care of
> some unfinished business from this summer.  Here's the latest digest:
>
> 1> What a lot of words to avoid having to say directly that Dave is an
> 1> strong influence and inspiration to us all. Let's not be childish
> 1> with praise now if the rare occurence arrives to do so. Dave's style
> 1> is infective, viral in it's nature. We can all attest to that. To my
> 1> amusement I find myself applying successfully his technique to
> 1> situations outside Usenet. Apply the chant of "Irrelevant, Incorrect,
> 1> Illogical" and everything dissolves. Very zen. Hoorah for Dave, I hope
> 1> the Usenet posting gives him a frequent laugh.
>
> I hope you chant appropriately.

Yup.  He chants, "O-wha Tadi kiam"

> 2> I cannot answer the question within digest form. Therefore digest form
> 2> is useless, thereby for my intents and purposes irrelevant.
>
> Digest form is quite useful for my purposes.

Yes, digest form is quite convenient for playing infantile games and avoiding
issues.

> 3> Dave, how have I missed you. It is nice to see Eric Bennett, primus
> 3> inter pares, was pivotal to your belated and much anticipated return
> 3> in csma.
>
> He was not.

Incorrect.

> Marty was pivotal.

On what basis do you make this erroneous claim?

> And I did not "return" to csma.

A semantic argument, as is what you'd expect from someone lacking a logical
argument.

> I simply responded

- irrelevantly -

> to another cross-posted article.  THose who start cross-posted threads bring
> this on themselves.

Glad I haven't done such a thing.  I'd hate to have to deal with Dave's
infantile "wrath".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 00:37:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest Episode IV - A New Hope

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie.  The evidence was
nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified in hypocritically
accusing me of lying.  A rather dull and typical development in Dave's
infantile game.  Here are more issues that Dave is too embarrassed to address
with his excuse for "logic":

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Truly amazing that Marty started off his posting with a lie.  The
> evidence was right there in the first line of his quoted material,
> which was:
>
> ] 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough,
>
> yet he claimed that the article wasn't about me.

Note the lack of evidence.  What alleged claim?  Which alleged article?

> An interesting development in Marty's "infantile game".  Here's today's
> digest:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

> 1> Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a
> 1> response to any articles posted to or about him.  As usual, he's
> 1> trying to blame me for something he caused.  If we're lucky and I
> 1> call him on the irrelevant cross-posting, he may even pull the old
> 1> "aim at the base of the flames" argument out from retirement.  And
> 1> one can only wonder whether his exchanges with Eric Bennett are
> 1> indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been playing on
> 1> me.  Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
> 1> had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another
> 1> thread in COOA and consists of several thousand lines):

Note: no response

> 1> [Note:  Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that
> 1> were not intended for him in this infantile "digest".  Just further
> 1> evidence of his nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further
> 1> evidence were needed)]

Note: no response

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 01:01:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Dimsdale Digest ]I[ - The Search for Spock

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Apparently Aaron's dirty glasses have not been enough of a hindrance to him to
prevent his continued spreading of FUD, lies, and illogical, inaccurate
statements.  In spite of all of the time he spends tending his Balderdash
garden, he still makes the time to lie and play infantile games on UseNet.
Here's today's digest:

1> Please note that this is not Part 2 of the Dimsdale Digest. You
1> wouldn't know that, of course, because the many Dimsdale Digests were,
1> all but one, before you ever joined these threads.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> Prove it, if you think you can.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> How ironic, coming from someone who is at it again.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> If I knew, I would not have asked, Marty.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

1> I cleaned them before posting my reply to Joe, Marty.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> Balderdash, Marty.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of the
2> crew all were aiming at me.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

2> It's Pott's garden, not mine, and I cleaned my glasses a few posts ago.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

3> Several posts ago, I cleaned them and your posts looked exactly the same
3> afterwards.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

3> Several posts ago, I cleaned my glasses and your posts looked exactly
3> the same afterwards.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

3> There is no evidence that it is my Balderdash garden, only that I am
3> tending it.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

3> Balderdash, Marty.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

3> Unnecessary.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.
3> Balderdash, Marty.
3> An obvious lie.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

4> Darn glasses, I better start cleaning again.

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

5> Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?

"Balderdash."

I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            02-Dec-99 21:39:24
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Timberwoof <[e-mail]>

In article <827g43$e3k$[e-mail]>, "Stuart Fox"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> josco <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Boob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > An OS to me and most professionals is either absolutely complaint
> > > > or
> > > > non-compliant. There is no more in-between possible. It's like
> > > > being a
> > > > little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> > > >
> > > It's pretty simple actually Boob.  If an OS won't crash over the Y2K
> period,
> > > and the majority of it's apps will have no issues, then it is largely
> > > compliant.
> >
> > What boob gave you that unacceptable definition of Y2K compliance ?
>
> So define Y2K compliance in words a simple Windows lemming can
> understand.
> And besides, the definition I gave above was how an OS could be partially
> Y2K compliant, and still be OK.

Don't you think it's a little late to be getting informed about the
issues?

But because I'm not a complete asshole, I've done your homework for
you...

http://www.nsf.gov/oirm/y2k/myths.htm
http://www.apple.com/about/year2000/
http://www.year2000.com/
http://www.ieeeusa.org/Y2K/
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/2000/
http://headlines.yahoo.com/full_coverage/tech/year_2000_problem/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Year_2000_Problem/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rsandler/Y2KFAQ.htm
http://www.year2000.co.uk/comply.htm#mean

"Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor
functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after
the Year 2000.

In particular,

       Rule 1: No value for current date will cause any interruption in
operation
       Rule 2: Date-based functionality must behave consistently for
dates prior to, during and after Year 2000
       Rule 3: In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any
date must be specified either explicitly or by
       unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules
       Rule 4: Year 2000 must be recognised as a leap year."



"We may not have got everything right, but at least we knew that the
century was going to end." - Douglas Adams.

--
Timberwoof; mroeder<at>best<dot>com; http://www.best.com/~mroeder
Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider, and
not your ordinary noncomformist. "You may have the right to say that,
but I will defend to the death my right to disagree."

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Infernosoft (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: roger@.                                           03-Dec-99 06:09:09
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: Roger <roger@.>

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:14:45 -0500, someone claiming to be Tim Adams
wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]>, Roger <roger@.>
wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:07:02 -0500, someone claiming to be Tim Adams
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It is my understanding that the copy they bought was a _pirated_ and
>> >modified version of Seattle Computer's DOS.
>>
>> Your understanding is seriously flawed.
>>
>> >Both versions were licensed by
>> >IBM for release with the first PC. MS's version took control because IBM
>> >priced them so differently - one for ~$50 and the other for ~$150.
>> >They licensed both because they (IBM) was concerned because of rumors they
>> >had heard of MS's version being stolen AND that Seattle Computer was about
>> >to sue MS for doing the stealing. In their licensing deal with Seattle
>> >Computer, Gary Kildahl (bad spelling on the name) told IBM to go ahead, he
>> >wouldn't sue but beat them (MS) with a better product. IBM then screwed
>> >him with the price.
>>
>> You have mixed up CP/M, QDOS, Tim Patterson, Gary Kildall and more
>> than a bit of whole cloth here.
>>
>> Do try not to make yourself look so foolish next time?
>
>So why don't you enlighten the world with your understanding of the
>beginnings of DOS for the IBM pc? Mine came from people at IBM, interviews
>with people that talked with Gary Kildall, an historical run down on the
>pbs show Computer chronicles, and a couple magazine articles.

Then why do you have it so seriously screwed up?  Gary Kildall wrote
CP/M, which was one of the OSes offered for the original PC.  Tim
Patterson wrote Q-DOS, which MS licensed and renamed MS_DOS.  Kildall
is reported to have claimed that Q-DOS was an illegal copy of CP/M,
but never made such a claim in a court of law, nor was such a claim
reported until several years later.  Patterson wrote Q-DOS as a CP/M
clone, to ease the porting of applications from that OS, and
reportedly did so from documentation freely available from Digital
Research, which was Kildall's company.  Kildall had nothing to do with
Seattle Computer, other than the implications of the aforementioned
claim.

http://exo.com/~wts/mits0014.HTM

Your turn...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 06:05:20
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 2 Dec 1999 21:30:33 -0500, Jason wrote:

>Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:
>: In article <bro14.7933$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
>: <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>:> Why are anti-OS/2-advocate-advocates posting their B.S. on this
>:> newsgroup? This is obviously a newsgroup for OS/2 advocates. Read the
>:> name. If you want to talk about how much OS/2 and its users suck, talk
>:> about it with your buddies on cswa or cowa or csma or coma or wherever
>:> your Windows or MacOS or BeOS or whatever advocates reside. I don't mean
>:> to say anything bad about Windows or MacOS or BeOS, because they all
>:> have their strengths and weaknesses (and I can't say anything either way
>:> on BeOS because I haven't used it), as do every OS--but this is a
>:> newsgroup FOR OS/2 ADVOCATES. It's not a newsgroup FOR FLAMING OS/2
>:> ADVOCATES.
>
>: That would not be appropriate either, because according to your logic,
>: csma is for Mac advocates, not for anti-OS/2 people.
>
>True, but you could talk about how MacOS is better then OS/2.
>
>: Maybe what you should be advocating is the creation of an OS/2 analog of
>: a group like alt.flame.macintosh, if there isn't one already.
>
>I don't think that many people actually care about OS/2 enough to
>substain an entire flaming newsgroup.  The only reason flaming survives
>here is that certain people enjoy trying to push OS/2 advocates buttons
>and start flamewars.
>
>: Anyway, if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2, how
>: come you participate in the tholenbot wars?
>
>Actually it's a newsgroup for Flaming and Supporting OS/2, this is the
>description from the news server.  But it's not a group for flaming OS/2
>advocates.
>
>-Jason

Couldn't have said it better myself, Jason.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 06:04:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: What the heck's going on?

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> Anyway, if this group is just for saying positive things about OS/2,
how
> come you participate in the tholenbot wars?

Because it's not specific to this newsgroup.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 06:10:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Originality makes a cameo appearance

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:31:28 -0500, tholenbot wrote:

>In article <0bo14.7925$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:43:44 -0500, tholenbot wrote:
>>
>> >In article <wvn14.7872$[e-mail]>, Aaron "Ian"
>> >Dimsdale <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I warned you about going down that path, Aaron.
>> >>
>> >> An obvious lie.
>> >
>> >What is "obvious" about it, Aaron?
>>
>> Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?
>
>I see you didn't answer the question.  How predictable.  It's too bad
>you still don't recognize how your behavior is perceived, Aaron.

Jumping into others' conversations, Eric? How ironic.

>I do not 'approve' phrases.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>-Dave Tholen

Balderdash, Eric.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 06:12:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451515

From: Aaron Dimsdale <[e-mail]>

On 2 Dec 1999 11:32:15 GMT, Dave Tholen wrote:

>Today's Dimsdale digest:
>
>1> Just to clear something up, I own not a single Balderdash garden,
>1> Marty. It's Pott's garden, and it's the only Balderdash garden that
>1> exists at this point. Of course, Marty, you wouldn't know that, because
>1> you haven't been with these threads back in the days of the Bennett v.
>1> Pott and Tholen v. Pott ">>>>>Balderdash. >>>>Balderdash.
>1> >>>Balderdash.>>Balderdash. >Balderdash." posts.
>
>Were you "with" these threads back then?

You don't remember, Dave?

>2> Sure you weren't, but I'm sure Bennett, Tholen, Pott and the rest of
>2> the crew all were aiming at me.
>
>Aiming what, allegedly?

Self-evident.

>3> Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.
>
>You've confirmed that you're having trouble keeping track of who's who.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> I care because you do, Dave.
>
>Illogical.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> I care because you do, Dave.
>
>Illogical.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> I care because you do, Dave.
>
>Illogical.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> I care because you do, Dave.
>
>Illogical.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> Balderdash, Dave.
>
>An unsubstantiated claim.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> Balderdash, Dave.
>
>An unsubstantiated claim.

Balderdash, Dave.

>3> I did not say that, Dave.
>
>Incorrect.

Balderdash, Dave.

>4> Don't you know, tholenbot-who-is-Eric?
>
>AD] Actually, I thought tholenbot was Chris Pott.

Irrelevant.

---------------------------
Aaron Dimsdale
Baseball QA Engineer (Outfielder)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        03-Dec-99 06:19:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 03:35:08
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Timberwoof <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
[snip]
|
| "Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor
| functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after
| the Year 2000.
|
| In particular,
|
|        Rule 1: No value for current date will cause any interruption in
| operation
|        Rule 2: Date-based functionality must behave consistently for
| dates prior to, during and after Year 2000
|        Rule 3: In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any
| date must be specified either explicitly or by
|        unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules
|        Rule 4: Year 2000 must be recognised as a leap year."
|

I don't understand this thread.  Are you arguing about the
concept of "largely compliant"?  If so, I would think that
you're nit-picking a little bit.  I forgot the exact date, but
Windows 95 is said to be totally unaffected by date field
deficiencies until the mid 2030s (I think the number was
2035).  Will there actually be people using Win95 40
years after its release?  Remember that the Windows
life cycle is much shorter than that of DOS or Unix.

Then again, I read this thing about 2035 a while ago.
The most recent patches may bring it into full
compliance.

I would go so far as to say that Windows 95/98/NT,
with the correct patches, are all fully compliant.  If an
application keeps its own time and isn't able to handle
a date after Dec. 31, 1999, I wouldn't blame the OS
for that.  That situation doesn't make any particular OS
any less Y2K ready.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 08:25:07
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 05:15:15
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Glenn Davies write:
> On 3 Dec 1999 00:43:40 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> >MS doesn't force computer buyers to do anything.  Microsoft sells its code.
> >People buy it.  This is called a free exchange.
>
> Under MS's per-processor licensing agreements, which the '95 consent
> decree eliminated, customers paid for DOS and Windows even if they
> didn't want those products.

How was that?  I know the answer.  I can't wait to see how you express it.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 08:34:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 05:15:15
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> > Does Microsoft send people to force you to buy their products?  Which
> > gun is being placed at your skull?
>
> No, it sends people to the manufacturers and vendors of computers forcing
> them to include Windows on every machine they sell or pay four times as
> much for Windows.

That isn't forcing them.  If they don't want to include Windows on a single
sold machine, they don't have to.  "Paying four times as much for Windows"
isn't a problem, because they don't have to buy Windows in the first place.

>                       Thus competition forces vendors to comply since the
> margin on a typical PC is far less than 4 times the price of Windows if
> they do.

That's if they are selling Windows machines.  What about if they decide not
to sell a single Windows machine.

> > Or is it a matter of Microsoft "forcing you" to buy the product by
> > providing a valued product at an affordable rate?
>
> Valued product? Not to me it is not. It is a piece of garbage I do not and
> will not use but must pay for despite my desire to use an alternate
> operating system.

Apparently blindness to alternatives comes free with your copies of Windows.

Tell me, do you think that you are the only person in the world to not want
Windows?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 08:41:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 05:15:15
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Stan Goodman write:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:22:34, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> > Yes.  So much for "home of the free".
>
> No, that is what keeps it the home of the free.

The heavy-hand of the government gun tearing apart successful businesses?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          03-Dec-99 10:21:08
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Jeff Glatt
>>OS/2 Advocacy has always hinged upon "attacking the mainstream",
>>whether it be developers who support Windows, or Windows users (ie,
>>"lemmings" in OS/2 Advocacy terminology), or journalists who write
>>favorable things about anything related to Windows (or commit the
>>unspeakable crime of merely failing to praise OS/2 in every magazine).
>>That's one big reason why OS/2 Advocacy has, by and large, been a
>>complete and utter failure.

>Aaron Dimsdale
>Go look at some MacOS users out there

Mac users have no relevance whatsoever to my above comments. If you're
having trouble following the topic, let me know, and I'll explain it
to you. (Pssssst. The clue is in the first two words of my above
paragraph).

>all the other "Gates Is God, Worship Gates" Windows advocates posting to
>this newsgroup.

Windows advocacy also has no relevance whatsoever to my above
comments.

>Funny how you constantly
>talk about how much OS/2 sucks and its users suck and how its advocates
>are bastards who kill everything that puts a dent in the paint of
>OS/2...

Actually, one of the truly bad things that happened to OS/2 was OS/2
Fanatics such as yourself and Ian Tholen and those of that ilk. Those
are the people who really "put a dent in the paint of OS/2", and
continue to do so to this day. You folks even helped drive away all of
your own supporters -- OS/2 developers. Maybe if you were more
productive and less destructive, things would have been different.
But, that's not the way it was, nor the way it is.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 03-Dec-99 09:51:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, "Steven C. Britton"
<[e-mail]> writes:
>
>The "Corporate Geniuses" at the top of the "food chain", as you put it are
>there and get paid the big bucks because it's their necks on the line if the
>corporation fails: they're the ones who carry the greatest financial risk:
>and the fundamental law of risk-taking is that the higher the risk, the
>bigger the reward.
>

You are a certified victim of a clandestine frontal lobotomy. I can name
ten large corporations bankrupted by their megalomaniacal CEO's off
the top of my head and in every single case the CEO walked home the
proud possessor of several million dollars. Conversely you cannot name ONE
CEO of a large failed corporation in the last ten years who has taken a
financial hit.


>>
>Work better: Work union-free.
>
>Steven C. Britton
>Calgary
>
>www.cadvision.com/sbritton
>
>
>


--
härad ængravvåd

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: SBC Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Dec-99 11:06:02
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

COMA and COMNA snipped - of course.

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:09:35, David Sutherland
<sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> >
> >He could have used that computer before and left a textfile with his
> >sig.
> >Or he has a floppy with his .sig with him...
> >
> >Nah, that couldn't be it. It's far too simple.
> >
>
> It *could* be that simple - bu then again, removing a single entry
> from a killfile is every bit as simple yet he refuses to do
> that....and indeed lacks the self-restaraint necessary to simply not
> read the post.
>
IIRC, Bob has given us the explanation, so hypotheth... hypotess...
guessing isn't necessary anymore.

On a personal note (repeated): I still find fillfiles a stupid
invention, for which I see no rational use other than p*ssing off
somebody. It's far simpler and rewarding just to ignore someone,
especially if you don't announce it and make a big fuzz over it (I can
safely ignore certain posters, watch them foam around the virtual
mouth, and yet reply to them whenever I want to. They can't even
complain about me ignoring my killfile. True b*st*rds don't have
killfiles...

> Bob's explanations become more and more contrived the more desperate
> he becomes to prove what a techno-wiz he is.  Frankly, I doubt his
> words now.
>
Of course, especially after those well-phrased and thoroughly
consistent arguments from Jeff Glatt. So let me see, I have to choose
between the credibility of a couple of ex-OS/2 users, turned to the
dark side, spending their time in the old COOA telling everyone how
stupid they are - and Bob Germer. Hmmmm, tough one...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Dec-99 11:06:02
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Man, I'm outta here.

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:26:39, Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-7bUCgq7KjC5q@localhost>,
> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:10:27, Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > As prize for his award, he can have his own personalized copy of
> > > Question 32 from the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ:
> > >
> >
> > Whoa! You guys have a *FAQ*!?
> > Kewl!
>
>
> It's more like a collection of snide remarks, but we call it a FAQ.
>
How shocking! An advocacy group where politeness and consideration for
others are not respected principles!
I shall refrain from frequenting your premises, Sir.

> --
> Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
> Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
> -Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft

Figures.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Dec-99 11:06:04
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Sorry wrong newgroup.... {It's an old group, dummy!}

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

(Note to the original poster: "See what I mean?")

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:09:32, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing intelligence and sanity from the
> > participants of this group (including yours truly).
>
> On what basis do you make this claim, Karel?
>
By extrapolating from MGF-numbers (*). Of course, it takes basic MGF
skills to understand this. I see you're not quite there yet.

> > <Don't listen to him! It's all lies!! Lies, I tell ya!!!!!>
>
> Illogical.
>
You're talking to the wrong personality.

> > {And why, pray, do you use a Micro$oft O/S to post to this group? You
> > are unworthy to become a member of Warp Metropolis.
>
> Taking inappropriate citation of OS's in message header lessons from Tim
> "Master of Inappropriate Citation of OS's in Message Headers" Martin?
>
Don't look now, but there's a poppycock in your balderdash garden, and
it's not tending your flowers.

> > (I heard Tim is better, so I figured, What the heck.)}
>
> What you figured is irrelevant.

Well, I figured that the irrelevancy of my figuring would add up to
the figure eight. So go figure...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

(*) MGF: My Gut Feeling

=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 01:33:12
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (None Of Your Business) said:

>BTW, I can't think of anyone I know who's been killed by a gun.

Unless you're drug dealer or friends with them, what is your point? Other
then to show you're a near moron by using an association that has no
relevance.


>[e-mail] wrote in <38471bea$1$yrgbherq$[e-mail]>:
>>BTW, I can't think of corporation that failed except when the big bucks
>>guys didn't know what the business was about, or refused to accept changes
>>in the market.

_____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         03-Dec-99 11:36:28
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Dimsdale digest, volume 2451516

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Here's today's Dimsdale digest:

1> You don't remember, Dave?

I see you didn't answer the question.

1> Self-evident.

Pontification.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Balderdash, Dave.

1> Irrelevant.

2> On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:31:28 -0500, tholenbot wrote:

3> tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):

What is the alleged pseudonym?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         03-Dec-99 11:36:15
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451516

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

1> "back", Dave?

Yes.

1> God knows I never left,

Haven't seen you around here for a while.

1> anxiously awaiting your return.

"'return', Haakmat?  God knows I never left."

1> You are such a considerate fine gentleman, Dave. My heart SWELLS
1> with joy that you took the trouble to follow up on some of our,
1> you phrase it so delicately accurate, unfinished business.

I presume you're being facetious.

1> Like a broken clock, I chant endlessly, in the hope of being
1> appropriate at least twice a day.

Do clocks chant?

1> Ah, digest form. It is such a joy to hear you extoll the virtues of
1> digest form. When did you first begin to consider digest form, Dave?

When the complaints about the bandwidth being wasted by the people who
use this newsgroup for entertainment purposes reached critical mass.

1> That's Dave for you, always heedful and alert! Of course you did not
1> "return" to csma, Dave. But I was only being wishful.

More like dishonest.

1> Won't you grant me the illusion that, yes, just maybe, you returned
1> to csma just to continue your unfinished business with me?

Go to Talos IV.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         03-Dec-99 11:36:01
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451516

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

I see that not only did Marty fail to admit to his lie, he lied yet
again by claiming that my evidence was nowhere to be seen, despite the
fact that the evidence was right up there in the introductory text.
His mimicking style is yet more evidence that his "infantile game" is
continuing.  Here's today's digest:

1> What alleged "tholenbot wars", tholenbot?

2> Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie.  The
2> evidence was nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified
2> in hypocritically accusing me of lying.  A rather dull and typical
2> development in Dave's infantile game.  Here are more issues that Dave
2> is too embarrassed to address with his excuse for "logic":

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Note the lack of evidence.  What alleged claim?  Which alleged article?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Note: no response

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Note: no response

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie.  The
3> evidence was nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified
3> in hypocritically accusing me of lying.  A rather dull and typical
3> development in Dave's infantile game.  Here are more issues that Dave
3> is too embarrassed to address with his excuse for "logic":

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> Note the lack of evidence.  What alleged claim?  Which alleged article?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> Note: no response

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> Note: no response

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Yup.  He chants, "O-wha Tadi kiam"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Yes, digest form is quite convenient for playing infantile games and
4> avoiding issues.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> On what basis do you make this erroneous claim?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> A semantic argument, as is what you'd expect from someone lacking a
4> logical argument.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> - irrelevantly -

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Glad I haven't done such a thing.  I'd hate to have to deal with
4> Dave's infantile "wrath".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

5> That's proprietary information, David.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

Sutherland can be pretty humorous at times.  How I spend my time at
work isn't even relevant to this newsgroup.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   03-Dec-99 07:06:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]>

Let me quote a PC magazine's article on the subject:

PCWorld, December 1999, in a sidebar named 'Copy This' on page 142.

"Some folks say Steve Jobs pulled the heist of the century when he struck a
deal with Xerox in 1979. The firm could invest $1 million in Apple if Jobs
could visit its Palo Alto Research Center. Xerox said yes, and a Pandora's
box swung open.

At PARC, Jobs spied the Alto, and experimental PC with a graphical user
interface. Within minutes, it's been reproted, Jobs realized that in the
future, all computers would use GUI.

According to conventional wisdom, Apple then cloned the Alto with its
Macintosh - before Microsoft, in turn, mimicked the Mac with Windows. But
Apple's work on the Mac had already begun when Jobs toured Xerox. And Jeff
Raskin, an Apple employee, had been exploring graphical interfaces as early
as 1967. 'The only thing (Apple) took,' says historian Owen W. Linzmayer,
'was inspiration.' Indeed, the company was lolely responsible for many
elements of the modern GUI, including the clipboard, trash can, and
drag-and-drop file management - making the visit to PARC seem like something
less than grand larceny." - Harry McCracken

Yes folks, work on the Mac had begun as early as 1979, probably as the
Lisa - before Microsoft ever thought of it. Was PC-DOS or MS-DOS even out
that early? I know Microsoft had Altair BASIC for the Altair 8800 much
earlier, but I'm not sure if the IBM PC was ever released yet.

Secondly, Windows 1.0 was not even graphical at all. It was merely DOS with
mouse support. Graphical interfaces use graphics. Also, I'm not sure, but I
don't seem to remember even hearing of the Amiga in 1984. Commodore was
still selling the Commodore 64/128 back then, from what I remember. I don't
have any recollection of hearing anything about Amiga until 1986 or so.

So get a life naysayers...

--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH

CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?

"Lord Foul" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:383dce64$0$[e-mail]...
> R. Tang <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:81i9pu$oka$[e-mail]...
> > Mr. Biddlesworth <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >So the code of Windows 1.0 (or its prototype) plausibly predated MacOS
1.0 by a year
> > >(unless LisaOS and MacOS 1.0 were virtually identical???).
> >
> > No, it does not. Not if you can do math.
> >
> > --
> > -Roger Tang, [e-mail], Artistic Director  PC Theatre
>
>
> You should open your mind, face facts, and quit believing Job's
propaganda.
>
> I have >>proof<< that Microsoft Windows 1.0 was running in 1983.
>
> Read this 1983 Byte article:
http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/win1983.html
> It's so old that Apple's Lisa is mentioned but not Macintosh.
>
> So that debunks the myth that Windows >>originated<< was an imitation of
Mac.
>
> History lesson is over.  Class, dismissed.
>
>
> Mr. Biddlesworth
> (not speaking for Intel Corporation)
>
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                       03-Dec-99 13:33:12
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Brent Davies wrote:
>I don't understand this thread.  Are you arguing about the
>concept of "largely compliant"?  If so, I would think that
>you're nit-picking a little bit.  I forgot the exact date, but
>Windows 95 is said to be totally unaffected by date field
>deficiencies until the mid 2030s (I think the number was
>2035).  Will there actually be people using Win95 40
>years after its release?  Remember that the Windows
>life cycle is much shorter than that of DOS or Unix.

That's *because* of always having such issues. There's always another
"problem" with the current version of Windows to "entice" people to get the
next version (which will always solve all problems and famine in the world).

So, having another "issue" is no problem because we always have so many
"issues" that this version won't last long...

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  03-Dec-99 08:06:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451515

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Ah, the nothing known as <[e-mail]> has seen one
of his betters writing and, in a pitiful attempt to make himself look only
obnoxious, has tholened:

> Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:

Let's see what little.man.tholen has to slime:

> > c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
>
> Still having attribution problems, Stuyck (little boy)?

Still having trouble recognizing a reference to yourself, little man Tholen?

> > ....the same thing twice.
>
> Not my problem, Stuyck (little boy).

This is just hilarious, little man!  How often has the newsgroup(s) been
subjected to little man Tholen's outcry against one of his many opponents
who has the same problem he's allegedly had but which, according to little
man Tholen, demonstrates the opponent's stupidity!  You can't have it both
ways, little man Tholen, and your own claptrap condemns you.  You're just as
stupid as you claim others are.

> > Amazing.  I've lost count of the number of times Wedgie Boy pounced
> > on someone for posting the identical newsgroup article twice.
>
> There's a difference between a person posting twice and a machine
> posting twice, Stuyck (little boy).

Prove that all other cases of an individual posting twice were not caused by
the same or a similar reason, goofball, if you can, little man Tholen.
Little man Tholen, known for his having been chosen Kook twice over, called
Wedgie Boy and other names, is scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Please,
little man Tholen, we don't want your refuse.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 08:07:09
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:26
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <8273ns$d5t$[e-mail]>, on 12/03/99 at 12:43 AM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> Here's a hint, US LAW DEFINING MONOPOLIES is the entire problem!  I'm
> not trying to argue that MS is acting legally, but rather that its
> actions should never have been illegal in the first place.

You have absolutely no say in what our laws are or ought to be. You are a
Canadian, a foreigner. I do not presume to tell you what your laws should
provide and you have no right to do so to the United States.

Our citizens decided that actions such as MicroSoft has been proven to
engage in violate laws we found necessary for our society. If the majority
of our citizens speaking via their respective Senators and Congressmen and
our President decide what MS is doing is illegal, it is illegal no matter
what a brain dead idiot from a foreign country thinks.

Why don't you do something about your Soverign's laws against a blind
person bringing his or her guide dog into England? You're her subject.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  03-Dec-99 08:10:13
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:26:27
Subj: Re: Why can't Germer compute?

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Gads, this Germer fellow's a real bore.  How can someone claims to be a
"computer professional" and yet be stuck with buying Windows each and every
time he assembles a computer?  Inquiring minds want to know!  I, too, got my
last two machines with no OS installed, but I guess I'm even smarter than
Germer himself...

- Joe

Jeff Glatt <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> >Bob Germer
> >Try buying an Intel based computer without paying
> >for Windows.
>
> I do it all of the time. But that's because I'm clearly MUCH more
> competent than a phony like you who lies about his alleged experience
> in setting up and maintaining computers


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  03-Dec-99 08:12:12
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:23
Subj: Re: Opera/2 50% done

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> >Bob Germer
> >I don't read his posts, he is killfiled here
>
> Where is "here"?

It's obvious, Jeff -- it's whenever Germer's stuck for a retort to the fact
that one need not buy a machine with Windows.  That's his "here."

- Joe



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 13:41:14
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (E. Barry Bruyea)

On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 08:07:19 -0500, Bob Germer
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>On <8273ns$d5t$[e-mail]>, on 12/03/99 at 12:43 AM,
>   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>
>> Here's a hint, US LAW DEFINING MONOPOLIES is the entire problem!  I'm
>> not trying to argue that MS is acting legally, but rather that its
>> actions should never have been illegal in the first place.
>
>You have absolutely no say in what our laws are or ought to be. You are a
>Canadian, a foreigner. I do not presume to tell you what your laws should
>provide and you have no right to do so to the United States.
>
>Our citizens decided that actions such as MicroSoft has been proven to
>engage in violate laws we found necessary for our society. If the majority
>of our citizens speaking via their respective Senators and Congressmen and
>our President decide what MS is doing is illegal, it is illegal no matter
>what a brain dead idiot from a foreign country thinks.
>
>Why don't you do something about your Soverign's laws against a blind
>person bringing his or her guide dog into England? You're her subject.

Yes, that's almost as bad as forbidding a Canadian writer entry into
the U.S. because he was a dues paying member to Greenpeace.  There's
danger all around us, isn't there?

>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
>Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
>

EBB

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Sympatico (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   03-Dec-99 13:57:24
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:24
Subj: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451516

From: [e-mail] (Pascal Haakmat)

Dave Tholen wrote:

>Haven't seen you around here for a while.

Say no more, old chap, say no more. I missed you too.

>"'return', Haakmat?  God knows I never left."

Thank goodness.

>I presume you're being facetious.

Whatever it is you think I'm doing, I hope you like it.

>Do clocks chant?

There you have me again! I keep saying these stupid things and you never
tire of correcting me. That's true friendship.

>When the complaints about the bandwidth being wasted by the people who
>use this newsgroup for entertainment purposes reached critical mass.

As a said, you are a considerate gentleman.

>More like dishonest.

No, really, you are a considerate gentleman.

>Go to Talos IV.

Will you lead the way?

--
CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 08:12:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on
12/02/99 at 08:39 PM,
   [e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly) said:

> And a long list of other improvements on the natural exploitation and
> sub-human treatment those Dashing Bold Mustachioed Capitalist  employers
> of yours will use, whenever allowed, untrammelled by law or  the evil of
> simple Collective Bargaining, on the class of sad  disadvantaged
> peasants who have to come to work in their factories to  put a daily
> scrap of bread on their families' tables.

How come, Buddy, if what you rant on about were true that trade unions now
represent less than 20% of the American workforce when it was more than
50% not that long ago?

How come so many former teamsters are now owner-operators of their own
trucks and making two or more times what they did as teamsters just 4 or 5
years ago?

How come, Buddy, if what you say were true does it cost some school
districts more per child for public school education than the tuition at
the most prestigious private schools?

How come when our Liberal Democrat township government decided to contract
out trash pickup our taxes went down when the formerly unionized "civil
servants" were laid off? This action was not taken by capitalists. Our
seven man Township Committee is composed of 6 Democrats and one
independent. Two of the Democrats are members of the NEA and NJEA, 1 is a
member of the International Associaton of Electrical Workers, a fourth is
a member of the Operating Engineers. Yet the vote was 7-0 to privatize
trash pickup rather than raise taxes 7%.

One of my neighbors who drives a brand new Lexus and a $300,000 tractor
formerly was a teamster. He saved his money and bought his own used
tractor and went into business for himself about 5 years ago. He arranges
his own contracts with shippers, chooses where he will and will no go,
what he will and will not haul, and when he will and will not travel. Most
importantly, he nets better than 3 times what he took home when working
for a union trucking company.

How come more and more union employees are now owners of the very
businesses the union forced out of business? There used to be a chain of
supermarkets called A&P throughout metropolitan Philadelphia as well as
nationally. It went bankrupt and sold many of the stores to the members of
the Retail Clerks Union and is now an employee operated company. The
worker/owners are making more money than before, getting higher wages than
they formerly did, have better benefits, and the stores are profitable.
Why? Because those owner/operators of those stores can fire workers who do
not meet minimum performance standards among other things. Because the
featherbedding forced on A&P by strikes has been eliminated.

One of my best friend's father and grandfather were in the road
construction and later general contracting business. They operated two
companies. One was union, the other non-union. They paid the same hourly
rate to workers of both companies but no union dues for the non-union
companies. They were able to perform most contracts for 20% less with the
non-union companies because they could demand better production from the
non-union employees than from the unionized ones. Their bricklayers
working for the union company were limited to laying 450 pieces of jumbo
brick (commercial buildings as opposed to single family homes) per 8 hour
day. The non-union men averaged well over 700 bricks a day. If the union
bricklayers produced more than the union approved 450 pieces a day, they
were fined by the local.

Under the union rules of the Operating Engineers, a bulldozer pulling a
pan (a huge scraper which removed dirt) required two operators and two
oilers even though the pan had no engine and nothing for an oiler to do by
the mid 1960's and the bulldozers no longer required servicing more than
once a week other than refueling. Thus a union contractor had to pay the
wages of four men where a non-union contractor had to pay only one plus a
small allowance for weekly maintenance equivalent to about 5 hours work
per week.

Under the rules of the Railway workers, freight trains required an
engineer, a fireman, a headend brakeman, a rear end brakeman, and a
conductor as a minimum crew even if the train only constituted an engine
and a caboose. The fireman's job disappeared with the last steam engine.
The brakeman jobs died before the turn of the current century with the
mandatory adoption of air brakes controlled solely by the engineer. The
caboose disappeared everywhere but the US in the 1950's because it was
nothing more than a waste of money, fuel, and wear and tear on the rails.
Only after every railroad in the northeast went bankrupt did the
government force changes in those featherbedding work rules when it was
forced to take over those railroads. Now the only place one sees a caboose
is on some freight lines where they have to drop off and pick up cars from
a one-way single track where the load has to be pushed across grade
crossings coming or going. We have two pipe plants which are served by
such a line in Burlington County. Conrail parks a caboose on the siding so
that the conductor can see where the train is going, hop off to make sure
traffic stops at two crossings, etc. When they leave the plant, they leave
the caboose on the siding, pick up what's left of the train, and go on.

The Pennsylvania Railroad, the New York Central, the Reading, the
Erie-Lackawanna, the Delaware and Hudson, the Central of New Jersey, the
New York New Haven and Hartford, the Long Island, and others whose names I
forget were all forced into bankruptcy by 1976 despite having been
relieved of the costs of carrying passengers by Amtrack earlier in the
1970's. Conrail became profitable in less than a decade despite having to
pay billions of dollars to remedy deferred right of way maintenance which
the bankrupt roads neglected trying to stay in business, paying billions
of dollars to upgrade bridges, signalling systems, etc.

Look at the airlines. I can cite at least 10 formerly major carriers who
were forced into bankruptcy or merger by labor costs. Ever hear of
Eastern? PanAM? Northeast? Lake Central? Braniff? Air West? Seaboard?
Mohawk? Capitol? Southern? Even TWA barely survived and then only by
having the employees take over ownership of the company. Isn't it
interesting that the owners of TWA were all members of one union or
another before they took over, eliminated featherbedding, changed work
rules to demand 8 hours work for 8 hours pay, gave up significant portions
of their salaries, etc. before the line became profitable.

Look at the automobile industry. Until the near bankruptcy of Chrysler in
the late 70's forced the UAW into major wage and work rule concessions the
UAW forbid the manufacturers to automate, forced a separate worker for
every job on the floor, forbade idle workers from doing things like
sweeping the floor, emptying trash cans, etc. It took nearly 3 times as
many man-hours to produce a car in 1980 than it does today. The quality of
those cars was crap compared to what the big 3 turn out today. Once the
cuckhold of the UAW was eliminated and the Big 3 could institute sane work
rules, hold workers accountable for the quality of their workmanship,
replaced inefficient hand labor with automated machines, the quality of
the cars increased by orders of magnitude, the cost in real dollars went
down despite inclusion of costly items such as airbags, etc.

Remember 1981? Remember what happened when the air traffic controllers
walked out? Remember what happened when replacement workers were hired? In
case your forget, the system functioned and functioned well. In fact,
there have been fewer mid-air collisions of planes under ATC control since
1981 than there were in the previous 10 years despite the traffic
increasing 4 fold since that time. In the latter half of the Carter
Administration, the union had forced the FAA to accept a contract where a
worker in a "high stress" assignment only worked 2 hours of his or her 8
hour shift. The other 6 hours were spent in "recurrent training" which
consisted of playing gin, reading magazines, shooting the bull, etc. for
the most part as evidenced by testimony before several Congressional
committees. The rate of medically related disability retirements was
nearly 20% per year. Well, now the rate is less than 7% for the last 15
years and the safety record is better despite much more frequent equipment
failures due to antiquated equipment which should have been retired 10 or
more years ago, despite a huge increase in the number of operations into
and out of every major airport, despite a huge increase in corporate jet
traffic, despite a huge increase in the number of foreign carriers serving
more and more US airports, despite the virtual lack of any new runways at
all but a handful of terminals.

The most congested metropolitan areas, New York and Los Angeles, have the
exact same number of runways as they had in 1981. The same is true of
Washington, Philadelphia (although a commuter plane only runway is under
construction there scheduled to open this time next year), Chicago,
Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Dallas Fort Worth, San Francisco. Of the airports
I regularly flew into, only Charlotte and Pittsburgh come to mind as
having added new runways in the past 18 years.

Unions are good? Bull!



There was a time when workers needed protection from employer abuse and
unions served a useful function. That time is past as shown by the decline
in union membership. By far the largest category of union membership is
among government employees or quasi government employees. Among the
Communication Workers which represent far more "civil servants" than
workers in the communications field, another union whose name I cannot
recall (something about State, County, and Municipal workers), and the NEA
and the NFT there are more members than all industrial workers combined.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 09:23:06
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:24
Subj: Re: Why can't Germer compute?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 12/03/99 at 08:10 AM,
   "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]> said:


> Gads, this Germer fellow's a real bore.  How can someone claims to be a
> "computer professional" and yet be stuck with buying Windows each and
> every time he assembles a computer?  Inquiring minds want to know!  I,
> too, got my last two machines with no OS installed, but I guess I'm even
> smarter than Germer himself...

I neve said I had to buy Monopows when I assemble a computer. I said I had
to buy it whenever I BOUGHT a computer to fulfill a contract with a
client, many of whom require certain name-brand only hardware. I said I am
forced to buy it whenever I purchase a notebook computer from a recognized
manufacturer. It takes a minimum of 10 man-hours to order parts, inventory
them, build the machine, install an operating system, test, and package
for shipment a computer we assemble. Not including the cost of the space
the employees occupy, it costs us a minimum of $175 to do this job which
is more than the margin vs. buying a system and drop shipping it to our
clients in most instances.

Also, if we have a problem with a failed component and we built the
machine, we have to absorb the costs of inventory of replacements,
diagnosis and repair, and the cost of securing replacement from the
manufacturer. With name brand machines, service contracts with third party
vendors are available and we generally recommend them for our clients too
small to have an MIS repairman on staff.

If we build a machine and the motherboard goes south, our reputation is on
the line. If Dell or IBM or HP etc. built the machine, it's not our
problem. If Xerox or CompUSA, etc. fail to provide good service, our
reputation is not harmed. If we cannot supply a part overnight or sooner,
our reputation is hurt.

Take a Pentium 100 built in 1995 which has an integrated clock and CMOS
battery package typical of those days. We cannot readily find an AT format
Socket 7 motherboard with 4 ISA slots using SIMM memory. The cost of
replacement thus involves new motherboard, new memory, new expansion
cards, and lately a new case/powersupply as well as AT format motherboards
become less and less available. If it's our machine, the repair costs as
much or nearly as much as scrapping the machine and replacing it. But if
it is an IBM, Dell, etc. under service contract, it costs the client
nothing more than lost time.

When a client has a problem with a name-brand machine or third party
service, we frequently will provide a temporary replacement from our own
shop, restore the software from backups or install the customer's hard
drive in the loaner, and keep him running until his machine is repaired.
This enhances our reputation and sometimes does lead to sales of our
machines. By choosing suppliers carefully and only using components
successfully used in house, we keep failures to a minimum, thankfully.

But when we supply those name-brand machines, we pay $30 or so for Windows
we don't want, need, or have use for now or in the foreseeable future.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: nojunkmailsteve@standardprinting...               03-Dec-99 08:51:21
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:24
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Steve" <[e-mail]>

Funny how the only pertinent facts you are sure of are the ones that support
your "opinion." Everything else, you are "not sure." If Mac is so great, why
does it hold such a miniscule market share vs. PC? Hmm, welcome to the real
world.

"Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Let me quote a PC magazine's article on the subject:
>
> PCWorld, December 1999, in a sidebar named 'Copy This' on page 142.
>
> "Some folks say Steve Jobs pulled the heist of the century when he struck
a
> deal with Xerox in 1979. The firm could invest $1 million in Apple if Jobs
> could visit its Palo Alto Research Center. Xerox said yes, and a Pandora's
> box swung open.
>
> At PARC, Jobs spied the Alto, and experimental PC with a graphical user
> interface. Within minutes, it's been reproted, Jobs realized that in the
> future, all computers would use GUI.
>
> According to conventional wisdom, Apple then cloned the Alto with its
> Macintosh - before Microsoft, in turn, mimicked the Mac with Windows. But
> Apple's work on the Mac had already begun when Jobs toured Xerox. And Jeff
> Raskin, an Apple employee, had been exploring graphical interfaces as
early
> as 1967. 'The only thing (Apple) took,' says historian Owen W. Linzmayer,
> 'was inspiration.' Indeed, the company was lolely responsible for many
> elements of the modern GUI, including the clipboard, trash can, and
> drag-and-drop file management - making the visit to PARC seem like
something
> less than grand larceny." - Harry McCracken
>
> Yes folks, work on the Mac had begun as early as 1979, probably as the
> Lisa - before Microsoft ever thought of it. Was PC-DOS or MS-DOS even out
> that early? I know Microsoft had Altair BASIC for the Altair 8800 much
> earlier, but I'm not sure if the IBM PC was ever released yet.
>
> Secondly, Windows 1.0 was not even graphical at all. It was merely DOS
with
> mouse support. Graphical interfaces use graphics. Also, I'm not sure, but
I
> don't seem to remember even hearing of the Amiga in 1984. Commodore was
> still selling the Commodore 64/128 back then, from what I remember. I
don't
> have any recollection of hearing anything about Amiga until 1986 or so.
>
> So get a life naysayers...
>
> --
> Ruel Smith
> Cincinnati, OH
>
> CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?
>
> "Lord Foul" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:383dce64$0$[e-mail]...
> > R. Tang <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:81i9pu$oka$[e-mail]...
> > > Mr. Biddlesworth <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >So the code of Windows 1.0 (or its prototype) plausibly predated
MacOS
> 1.0 by a year
> > > >(unless LisaOS and MacOS 1.0 were virtually identical???).
> > >
> > > No, it does not. Not if you can do math.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Roger Tang, [e-mail], Artistic Director  PC Theatre
> >
> >
> > You should open your mind, face facts, and quit believing Job's
> propaganda.
> >
> > I have >>proof<< that Microsoft Windows 1.0 was running in 1983.
> >
> > Read this 1983 Byte article:
> http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/win1983.html
> > It's so old that Apple's Lisa is mentioned but not Macintosh.
> >
> > So that debunks the myth that Windows >>originated<< was an imitation of
> Mac.
> >
> > History lesson is over.  Class, dismissed.
> >
> >
> > Mr. Biddlesworth
> > (not speaking for Intel Corporation)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 10:01:22
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 10:46:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 12/02/99 at 08:54 AM,
   "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]> said:

> Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> > No, it sends people to the manufacturers and vendors of computers forcing
> > them to include Windows on every machine they sell or pay four times as
> > much for Windows.

> That's not coercive.  It's a package deal.  Microsoft can't force
> computer distributors to put Windows on their machines; but they _can_
> say that "if you sell a computer with windows, we'll give you a massive
> discount on it".

Which is a direct violation of U. S. Fair Trade Laws which prohibit a
vendor from charging different prices to two customers for the same
quantiy of merchandise.





--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 10:36:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <826imu$c803u$[e-mail]>, on 12/03/99 at 08:52 AM,
   "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:

> So Boob has just proved that he cannot read.  I have suspected this for
> a while after reading his posts, but here is conclusive proof.  The
> Microsoft web page I check (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/year2k)
> states Windows 95 all English versions to be compliant (I didn't check
> foreign languages), provided you install the y2k patch.

And read and comprehend certain unspecified documentation. Tell the whole
truth.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 10:38:17
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 12/02/99 at 10:51
PM,
   Timberwoof <[e-mail]> said:

> There was even a 1999 problem: Some programmers used the code "99" to
> mean "forever," as in lifetime subscriptions. Y2k problems have already
> happened: credit cards that were to expire in 00, 01, 02, or later were
> rejected as already expired. A person born in 1918 was denied social
> security benefits because his birth date was encoded as 18 which was
> assumed to mean 2018.

Yep, and one of the TV News networks did a piece about a woman born in
1895 being sent a solicitation to attend a private kindergarten. It was
also in Reader's Digest a few months ago.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             03-Dec-99 15:26:08
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <826vta$a61$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer the question put to you:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the refusal to answer a basic,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> central question - looks like we've hit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another major soft spot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note again the pat refusal to answer the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and we see the refusal again
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .....and again...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>>>> ....and again.
>
> >>>> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> >>> ....and again.
>
> >> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?
>
> > ....and again.
>
> Where is this alleged "refusal", Lucien, again?

...and again.

The (unanswered) question again for the reader's reference:

According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is Dave's statement again for reference:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      03-Dec-99 15:43:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (None Of Your Business)

Ouch, that hurts leotard.

It may be hard, but look again.  It carries the exact same weight as your
statement below.

[e-mail] wrote in <38476277$1$yrgbherq$[e-mail]>:
>[e-mail] (None Of Your Business) said:
>
>>BTW, I can't think of anyone I know who's been killed by a gun.
>
>Unless you're drug dealer or friends with them, what is your point? Other
>then to show you're a near moron by using an association that has no
>relevance.
>
>>>[e-mail]:
>>>BTW, I can't think of corporation that failed except when the big bucks
>>>guys didn't know what the business was about, or refused to accept
>>>changes in the market.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: None Dammit (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          03-Dec-99 15:56:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
>I have to choose
>between the credibility of a couple of ex-OS/2 users, turned to the
>dark side, spending their time in the old COOA telling everyone how
>stupid they are - and Bob Germer. Hmmmm, tough one...

It's not a tough one for you at all. You favor OS/2 kooks like your
"nice" (as you describe him) duly-elected "Kook of the Month" buddy
Tholen. And you're somewhat dull and incredibly naive, so I don't see
why you shouldn't believe the implausible tripe that Germer spews just
as easily as you're impressed with Tholen's tripe. (Not that you
haven't already admitted that you're ignorant of many of the things
that you talk about here. You've already posted several messages to
people who have pointed out Tholen's hypocrisy and inconsistency with
your extremely befuddled "Gee, I don't know anything about that and I
don't want to even look at it because it might upset my vision of
Tholen as a nice guy who can do no wrong" vaudeville routine. You've
earned the moniker as a clueless person by your own actions, such as
requesting a copy of my Tholen Digest, and then somehow "losing it"
the same day that you received it, after making some misguided,
unsubstantiated allegations that the quotes were doctored, in your
inept attempt to run interference for Tholen)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           03-Dec-99 10:57:12
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: "Scott Higdon" <[e-mail]>

You know, popular doesn't always equal good. By your definition, Britney
Spears music is better than anybody's because it's popular.

Scott Higdon
[e-mail]
=====================================
They say I don't have any initiative.
I could prove them all wrong...
But why bother?
-Shoe
=====================================

----------
In article <0OQ14.45$[e-mail]>, "Steve"
<[e-mail]> wrote:


> Funny how the only pertinent facts you are sure of are the ones that support
> your "opinion." Everything else, you are "not sure." If Mac is so great, why
> does it hold such a miniscule market share vs. PC? Hmm, welcome to the real
> world.
>
> "Ruel Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
>> Let me quote a PC magazine's article on the subject:
>>
>> PCWorld, December 1999, in a sidebar named 'Copy This' on page 142.
>>
>> "Some folks say Steve Jobs pulled the heist of the century when he struck
> a
>> deal with Xerox in 1979. The firm could invest $1 million in Apple if Jobs
>> could visit its Palo Alto Research Center. Xerox said yes, and a Pandora's
>> box swung open.
>>
>> At PARC, Jobs spied the Alto, and experimental PC with a graphical user
>> interface. Within minutes, it's been reproted, Jobs realized that in the
>> future, all computers would use GUI.
>>
>> According to conventional wisdom, Apple then cloned the Alto with its
>> Macintosh - before Microsoft, in turn, mimicked the Mac with Windows. But
>> Apple's work on the Mac had already begun when Jobs toured Xerox. And Jeff
>> Raskin, an Apple employee, had been exploring graphical interfaces as
> early
>> as 1967. 'The only thing (Apple) took,' says historian Owen W. Linzmayer,
>> 'was inspiration.' Indeed, the company was lolely responsible for many
>> elements of the modern GUI, including the clipboard, trash can, and
>> drag-and-drop file management - making the visit to PARC seem like
> something
>> less than grand larceny." - Harry McCracken
>>
>> Yes folks, work on the Mac had begun as early as 1979, probably as the
>> Lisa - before Microsoft ever thought of it. Was PC-DOS or MS-DOS even out
>> that early? I know Microsoft had Altair BASIC for the Altair 8800 much
>> earlier, but I'm not sure if the IBM PC was ever released yet.
>>
>> Secondly, Windows 1.0 was not even graphical at all. It was merely DOS
> with
>> mouse support. Graphical interfaces use graphics. Also, I'm not sure, but
> I
>> don't seem to remember even hearing of the Amiga in 1984. Commodore was
>> still selling the Commodore 64/128 back then, from what I remember. I
> don't
>> have any recollection of hearing anything about Amiga until 1986 or so.
>>
>> So get a life naysayers...
>>
>> --
>> Ruel Smith
>> Cincinnati, OH
>>
>> CodeWarrior forever...Where's my war paint?
>>
>> "Lord Foul" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> news:383dce64$0$[e-mail]...
>> > R. Tang <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> > news:81i9pu$oka$[e-mail]...
>> > > Mr. Biddlesworth <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >So the code of Windows 1.0 (or its prototype) plausibly predated
> MacOS
>> 1.0 by a year
>> > > >(unless LisaOS and MacOS 1.0 were virtually identical???).
>> > >
>> > > No, it does not. Not if you can do math.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > -Roger Tang, [e-mail], Artistic Director  PC Theatre
>> >
>> >
>> > You should open your mind, face facts, and quit believing Job's
>> propaganda.
>> >
>> > I have >>proof<< that Microsoft Windows 1.0 was running in 1983.
>> >
>> > Read this 1983 Byte article:
>> http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/win1983.html
>> > It's so old that Apple's Lisa is mentioned but not Macintosh.
>> >
>> > So that debunks the myth that Windows >>originated<< was an imitation of
>> Mac.
>> >
>> > History lesson is over.  Class, dismissed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Mr. Biddlesworth
>> > (not speaking for Intel Corporation)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          03-Dec-99 16:09:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Why can't Germer compute?

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Bob Germer
>>>Try buying an Intel based computer without paying
>>>for Windows.

>>Jeff Glatt
>> I do it all of the time. But that's because I'm clearly MUCH more
>> competent than a phony like you who lies about his alleged experience
>> in setting up and maintaining computers

>Joe Malloy
>Gads, this Germer fellow's a real bore.  How can someone claims to be a
>"computer professional" and yet be stuck with buying Windows each and every
>time he assembles a computer?  Inquiring minds want to know!  I, too, got my
>last two machines with no OS installed, but I guess I'm even smarter than
>Germer himself...

According to his "testimony", his alleged "clients" (he doesn't really
have any -- what he claims to have done are things that he read about
someone else doing via computer magazines or web sites -- but let's
pretend otherwise for a moment just to analyze just how illogical,
implausible, and just plain dumb are his contrived anecdotes) don't
trust him to supply hardware because he's a local guy who doesn't have
millions of dollars in capital. So, they demand that hardware be
purchased from non-local companies like IBM or Compaq so that
professional, uninterrupted "service can be guaranteed years down the
road". And yet, these same "clients" have eschewed the professional
services of companies like IBM (whose specialty actually is what
Germer claims to be doing) in installing and maintaining these
computers. Instead, they have hired a 60-something year old local guy
to adminster millions of dollars worth of equipment for which they
require guarantees of service years down the road.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Suuuuuuuuuure. We believe that.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 11:52:00
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 14:33:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest Episode IV - A New Hope

From: "Wolf Kirchmeir" <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:37:54 -0500, Marty wrote:

=>Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie.  The evidence
was
=>nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified in hypocritically
=>accusing me of lying.  A rather dull and typical development in Dave's
=>infantile game.  Here are more issues that Dave is too embarrassed to
address
=>with his excuse for "logic":

=>Dave Tholen wrote:


...snip snip snip snip....


Why do you guys waste bandwidth on this crap. Get a life!




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NSMS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 10:13:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Ed Letourneau wrote:
>

> >The real truth is that companies that DON'T have unions have better, more
> >productive workforces, higher wages, and treat their employees better.
> >If I owned a corporation, I would do whatever I could to keep a union OUT
> >of my company.  If one formed, I would do whatever I could to get it
> >decertified.
>
> And you would not survive. Not because of unions, but you're too stupid to
> treat people as human beings -- which is what gave rise to unions in the
> first place.

Actually, I would treat people as human beings first and foremost -- that's
HOW I would prevent a union from walking in an destroying my company.  I'd
pay them well, give them excellent working conditions, and ensure that they
are happy with their jobs.

> Don't know about Canada, but in the US someone with your attitude could
> expect to have it readjusted.  _____________

Most Canadians don't subscribe to fascism, unlike the union goons...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 10:19:00
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Ed Letourneau, Union Goon, wrote:
>
> >The "Corporate Geniuses" at the top of the "food chain", as you put it
> >are there and get paid the big bucks because it's their necks on the line
> >if the corporation fails: they're the ones who carry the greatest
> >financial risk: and the fundamental law of risk-taking is that the higher
> >the risk, the bigger the reward.
>
> Baloney. Every VP I've ever seen "fired" at GE and elsewhere walked off
> with millions on the way out.

VPs aren't necessarily the investors.  They've received severence packages,
perhaps, but they're not the ones with the front money for the operation.

> There is no risk. --And in most cases they left because the risk they took
was to
> cook the numbers for next two guys up the food chain. Lets also accept
that fact
> that people don't work their way up to that level, they are pulled up. So
the risk is
> not nearly as real as you want to think.

I guess we should all go back to the stone age and bang rocks together then,
because without people willing to invest and risk -- real risk -- we
wouldn't be where we are right now.

> BTW, I can't think of corporation that failed except when the big bucks
> guys didn't know what the business was about, or refused to accept changes
> in the market.

That's business.

> >Union bosses, on the other hand, don't lose their $100K salaries when the
> >"workers" go out on strike; they just drive their BMWs to the picket
> >line, make a little speech, give a media interview with the cheering
> >rentamob behind them, get back in their BMW and drive to their next
> >event.
>
> Name the bosses that get 100K, and the rentamobs.

Buzz Hargrove.  Ted White.  Canadian Auto Workers.  CUPW.

> -- In the US that would be a violation of federal law and would be
verifiable -- that is unless
> your making it up and spouting off.

Ever see what happens when legitimate workers cross a picket line?

> >Unions aren't for the "workers" any more -- they're political activist
> >groups trying to ram ridiculous collectivist, socialistic, and
> >totalitarian practises down the throats of those who REALLY work hard.
>
> Examples; what are these totalitarian practices
>
> <snip> the rest of the rightwing crap... as we call it in the US

Totalitarian is leftist.  Rightist is the opposite of totalitarian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 17:11:03
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
> On <[e-mail]>, on 12/02/99 at 08:54 AM,
>    "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]> said:

> > That's not coercive.  It's a package deal.  Microsoft can't force
> > computer distributors to put Windows on their machines; but they _can_
> > say that "if you sell a computer with windows, we'll give you a massive
> > discount on it".
>
> Which is a direct violation of U. S. Fair Trade Laws

Precisely the point.

Why on earth is such a straightforward transaction illegal?  What kind of
crazy law is that?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 10:22:01
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I can name  ten large corporations bankrupted by their megalomaniacal
CEO's off
> the top of my head and in every single case the CEO walked home the
> proud possessor of several million dollars. Conversely you cannot name ONE
> CEO of a large failed corporation in the last ten years who has taken a
> financial hit.

CEO's aren't necessarily the investors; and in the case where they are, the
majority of instances where the CEO loses are in small, unestablished
businesses which fail during their first year of operation.  You never hear
about them because they never make it big in the first place.

The companies which you talk about are _already_ successful, turning a
profit, and someone sabotages the operation from within.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 10:31:28
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> > That's not coercive.  It's a package deal.  Microsoft can't force
> > computer distributors to put Windows on their machines; but they _can_
> > say that "if you sell a computer with windows, we'll give you a massive
> > discount on it".
>
> Which is a direct violation of U. S. Fair Trade Laws which prohibit a
> vendor from charging different prices to two customers for the same
> quantiy of merchandise.

It isn't the same quantity of merchandise.  One has Windows, the other
doesn't.  Microsoft is offering a large discount on Windows when it is
bundled with a computer.  You still pay more for a computer with Windows
than a computer with no OS at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 17:31:18
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>
> > When I sell something, I base my price on who is asking.  You will not
> > be able to buy a slice of pizza off me at the same rate I'd offer my
> > cousin. In fact, I may refuse to sell you the slice at all.
>
> If you did, you would be charged with a crime. A restaurant must serve
> everyone regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, etc. The civil
> rights laws apply to you as to everyone else.

I don't have the right to take away the right of a property-owner to do with
his property as he sees fit.  If a law says otherwise, that law is wrong.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 17:33:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Andrew Stephenson write:
>        [e-mail] "Bob Germer" writes:

> > If you did, you would be charged with a crime. A restaurant
> > must serve everyone regardless of race, creed, color, national
> > origin, etc. The civil rights laws apply to you as to everyone
> > else.
>
> Obviously you North Americans have managed to build a veritable
> paradise-on-earth.  Here in the backward old UK, AFAIK a trader
> can refuse to sell to a person, at whim.

It's called property rights.

Your "paradise-on-earth" is only from the point of view of the person
getting the product.  The person with the product isn't in paradise if his
property can be taken when he doesn't want it to be.

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 12:27:11
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Wolf Kirchmeir" <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:19:00 -0700, Steven C. Britton wrote:

=>Totalitarian is leftist.  Rightist is the opposite of totalitarian.

Now THERE's a brilliantly stupid remark!

=>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=>What have YOU done to bust a union today?
=>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=>
=>Work better: Work union-free.
=>
=>Steven C. Britton
=>Calgary




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NSMS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 10:49:15
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Steven C. Britton" <[e-mail]>

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
> =>Totalitarian is leftist.  Rightist is the opposite of totalitarian.
>
> Now THERE's a brilliantly stupid remark!

Totalitarian is collectivist.  Collectivist is leftist.  Ergo, totalitarian
is leftist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work better: Work union-free.

Steven C. Britton
Calgary

www.cadvision.com/sbritton



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cad
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 18:03:03
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
>
> > Here's a hint, US LAW DEFINING MONOPOLIES is the entire problem!  I'm
> > not trying to argue that MS is acting legally, but rather that its
> > actions should never have been illegal in the first place.
>
> You have absolutely no say in what our laws are or ought to be.  You are a
> Canadian, a foreigner.

So you say that you have absolutely no right to speak out against, say,
China's one-child policy?  Or totalitarian regimes where thousands of
citizens are killed each year?

>                      I do not presume to tell you what your laws should
> provide and you have no right to do so to the United States.

An unjust law is an unjust law, whether it is in your country or not.

> Our citizens decided that actions such as MicroSoft has been proven to
> engage in violate laws we found necessary for our society.

That's when things get interesting.  For the sake of your society, a
person's property is not deemed to be of their own control.  How does that
jive with the right to own property?  Or the American slogan of being for
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?

>                                                            If the majority
> of our citizens speaking via their respective Senators and Congressmen and
> our President decide what MS is doing is illegal, it is illegal

And when the citizens had spoken through their Senators and Congressman in
the past, was it always right?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: larso@commodore.                                  03-Dec-99 18:12:12
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
>    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> > Yes, they have.  Now, what does that mean?  It doesn't mean that
> > Microsoft is devoid of competition.  Do you have another definition of a
> > monopoly? Say, a business which is winning a competition?
>
> Monopoly as defined by U. S. law is a company so dominant in an industry
> segment that it can dictate to the entire segment, use its position to
> damage competitors, overcharge customers, etc.

Well, there are two options: either Microsoft is not a monopoly, or all
businesses are monopolies.  After all, "damaging competitors" and
"overcharging customers" are crimes committed by all businesses without
"pure competition".

> > Right now, there are 3 examples that come to mind of monopolies I live
> > under:
>
> > - Cable television.  Under the CRTC, Edmonton has 2 cable companies.
> > One is only allowed to sell on the east side of town, the other only on
> > the west
>
> This is not true in the United States. Each state here establishes the
> rules for cable television companies. Several communities here have a
> second franchise, much to the chagrin of the cable television industry. In
> those communities, rates are much lower, btw.

Naturally.  Why was there only one cable company before?

> > - Telephone service.  While I can choose any long distance provider, I
> > can only have one local phone service.  Anything else is illegal.
>
> We have choices for local telephone service here in the United States.

The same as you have choices for computer operating systems.  No government
is forcing all other businesses away.

> > None of these can exist without the government.  I can think of no
> > monopolies I live under not involving government.
>
> Microsoft comes to mind. Try buying an Intel based computer without paying
> for Windows.

Guess what?  If Intel has agreed to a deal, or all Intel vendors on earth
have agreed to a deal, wherein Windows must be sold in tandem, that isn't
the sign of a monopoly.  That is the sign of a set of agreements amoungst
private individuals.

Or do you believe Microsoft cannot sign contracts?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      03-Dec-99 19:08:27
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:06
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (E. Barry Bruyea)

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:22:03 -0700, "Steven C. Britton"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I can name  ten large corporations bankrupted by their megalomaniacal
>CEO's off
>> the top of my head and in every single case the CEO walked home the
>> proud possessor of several million dollars. Conversely you cannot name ONE
>> CEO of a large failed corporation in the last ten years who has taken a
>> financial hit.


I could name dozens.  Your commentary is interesting in that you seem
to come across as knowledgeable and then to spoil it all, you say
something really stupid.  In the last few years, many CEO's have
depended on stock options as the largest portion of their potential
earnings. What the hell do you think happens to stock options when a
company either goes belly-up or gets purchased for break-up value?
Or, if it shows a significant loss on revenues?  Now, just to stay in
the realm of things you may know something about, tell us about brain
surgery?

EBB

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Sympatico (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    03-Dec-99 18:50:06
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: [e-mail] (Gregory L. Hansen)

In article <0OQ14.45$[e-mail]>,
Steve <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Funny how the only pertinent facts you are sure of are the ones that support
>your "opinion." Everything else, you are "not sure." If Mac is so great, why
>does it hold such a miniscule market share vs. PC? Hmm, welcome to the real
>world.

Because a product doesn't have to be "great" in order to capture the
majority market.  It only needs to be good enough that consumers don't
consider it worth their while to look for something better.  Beyond that,
there are reasons that have nothing at all to do with technology that gave
DOS and Win 3.1 the majority over the Mac.
--
"That's not an avocado, that's a grenade!" -- The Skipper

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Indiana University, Bloomington (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                    03-Dec-99 11:20:26
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: [e-mail] (Chip Zempel)

In article <8293d5$ru8$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <0OQ14.45$[e-mail]>,
>Steve <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Funny how the only pertinent facts you are sure of are the ones that support
>>your "opinion." Everything else, you are "not sure." If Mac is so great, why
>>does it hold such a miniscule market share vs. PC? Hmm, welcome to the real
>>world.
>
>Because a product doesn't have to be "great" in order to capture the
>majority market.  It only needs to be good enough that consumers don't
>consider it worth their while to look for something better.  Beyond that,
>there are reasons that have nothing at all to do with technology that gave
>DOS and Win 3.1 the majority over the Mac.
>--
>"That's not an avocado, that's a grenade!" -- The Skipper

Betamax was clearly superior to VHS, in terms of quality.

There's a lot more to getting market share than quality or performance (or
ease of use, for that matter) - marketing, word of mouth, PRICE, etc. etc.
etc.

If "great" were the only determinant, we'd all be driving __________
(insert name of favorite car maker) and voting for _____________ for
President.

Welcome to which real world? Where? Whose?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Chip Zempel
[e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caution: Objects in Telescope are Farther than they Appear!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: who me? organized? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 13:14:08
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Glenn Davies <[e-mail]>

On 3 Dec 1999 08:25:14 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

>As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Glenn Davies write:
>> On 3 Dec 1999 00:43:40 GMT, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:
>
>> >MS doesn't force computer buyers to do anything.  Microsoft sells its
code.
>> >People buy it.  This is called a free exchange.
>>
>> Under MS's per-processor licensing agreements, which the '95 consent
>> decree eliminated, customers paid for DOS and Windows even if they
>> didn't want those products.
>
>How was that?  I know the answer.  I can't wait to see how you express it.

If you ordered a computer from a OEM and stated that you didn't want a
copy of DOS with it they would say fine it won't come with a copy of
DOS. And when you asked how much did you save they would answer $0.00.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: via Internet Direct - http://www.mydirect.com/ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 03-Dec-99 21:24:16
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Irvine)

Mr. Biddlesworth <[e-mail]> wrote:

> R. Tang <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:81i9pu$oka$[e-mail]... > Mr. Biddlesworth
> <[e-mail]> wrote: > > > >So the code of Windows 1.0 (or its
> prototype) plausibly predated MacOS 1.0 by a year > >(unless LisaOS and
> MacOS 1.0 were virtually identical???). > > No, it does not. Not if you
> can do math. > > -- > -Roger Tang, [e-mail], Artistic
> Director  PC Theatre
>
>
> You should open your mind, face facts, and quit believing Job's
> propaganda.
>
> I have >>proof<< that Microsoft Windows 1.0 was running in 1983.
>
> Read this 1983 Byte article:
> http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/win1983.html It's so old that
> Apple's Lisa is mentioned but not Macintosh.
>
> So that debunks the myth that Windows >>originated<< was an imitation of
> Mac.
>

I agree, windows only became an imitation of the mac by windows 95...

> History lesson is over.  Class, dismissed.
>
> --
> Mr. Biddlesworth


--
Andrew Irvine

Quote of the millennium: "We may not have got everything right,
but at least we knew the century was going to end!"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 14:49:17
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On 3 Dec 1999, Lars P Ormberg wrote:

> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Bob Germer write:
> >    larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:
> >
> > > Here's a hint, US LAW DEFINING MONOPOLIES is the entire problem!  I'm
> > > not trying to argue that MS is acting legally, but rather that its
> > > actions should never have been illegal in the first place.
> >
> > You have absolutely no say in what our laws are or ought to be.  You are a
> > Canadian, a foreigner.
>
> So you say that you have absolutely no right to speak out against, say,
> China's one-child policy?  Or totalitarian regimes where thousands of
> citizens are killed each year?

You have no sense of proportion.  None! It shows poorly developed values
and sensibilities.  Without a sense of proportion, there is no justice.

Drop OS/2 newsgroups if you need to make inappropiate references.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  03-Dec-99 15:53:04
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: kiwi <[e-mail]>

Steve wrote:
> Funny how the only pertinent facts you are sure of are the ones that support
> your "opinion." Everything else, you are "not sure." If Mac is so great, why
> does it hold such a miniscule market share vs. PC?

  Probably because the people who run Apple were too
stupid to do the obvious thing and port their OS to
PC hardware.  I'm not a big fan of the Mac (can't stand
it's interface, actually); but if Apple would have had
the brains to port their OS to the PC in the 89-93
time period, the market would probably look quite a
bit different right now.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: woo woo (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             03-Dec-99 22:55:28
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <821nd8$d28$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

-- snip --

> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --

> > "Up until now, I just *thought* you were inept -- now I'm sure."
>
> Irrelevant, Curtis, given that your excuse was to avoid writing
> a preposition at the end, thus the only relevant examples are
> those with "up" at the end.

That you actually believe this is truly sad.

After all, your question was, "What is 'up' doing at the beginning of
that phrase?" The implication was that "up" at the beginning of a phrase
was somehow wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that "up to which you failed to measure" is
gramatically incorrect?

If so, then "evidence, please," in the form of urls or actual books to
which I may refer in a typical bookstore (Border's, Barnes and Noble,
etc).

Your pontifications will not suffice.

-- snip --


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 18:26:06
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:24
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest Episode IV - A New Hope

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:37:54 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> =>Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie.  The evidence
was
> =>nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified in hypocritically
> =>accusing me of lying.  A rather dull and typical development in Dave's
> =>infantile game.  Here are more issues that Dave is too embarrassed to
address
> =>with his excuse for "logic":
>
> =>Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> ...snip snip snip snip....
>
> Why do you guys waste bandwidth on this crap. Get a life!

How ironic, coming from someone who just wasted bandwidth posting the above
"crap".  If you desire to make a difference, however, you'd be better advised
to aim your comments at the "base of the flames".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 03-Dec-99 15:35:05
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:24
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: winblows <[e-mail]>

kiwi wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> > Funny how the only pertinent facts you are sure of are the ones that
support
> > your "opinion." Everything else, you are "not sure." If Mac is so great,
why
> > does it hold such a miniscule market share vs. PC?
>
>   Probably because the people who run Apple were too
> stupid to do the obvious thing and port their OS to
> PC hardware.  I'm not a big fan of the Mac (can't stand
> it's interface, actually); but if Apple would have had
> the brains to port their OS to the PC in the 89-93
> time period, the market would probably look quite a
> bit different right now.

Yes, how stupid were the people running Apple ... if they would have
listen to you, Apple would not exist today and MS will still be selling
(an inferior) MacOS ;-)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 18:53:22
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:24
Subj: Re: Sorry wrong newgroup.... {It's an old group, dummy!}

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> (Note to the original poster: "See what I mean?")

Which alleged "original poster" Karel?

> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:09:32, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > You are erroneously presupposing intelligence and sanity from the
> > > participants of this group (including yours truly).
> >
> > On what basis do you make this claim, Karel?
> >
> By extrapolating from MGF-numbers (*).

Making unwarranted extrapolations Karel?

> Of course, it takes basic MGF skills to understand this.

Irrelevant, as the truth is independent of your "gut feelings".

> I see you're not quite there yet.

To where am I allegedly going, Karel?

> > > <Don't listen to him! It's all lies!! Lies, I tell ya!!!!!>
> >
> > Illogical.
> >
> You're talking to the wrong personality.

That's your problem, Karel, not mine.

> > > {And why, pray, do you use a Micro$oft O/S to post to this group? You
> > > are unworthy to become a member of Warp Metropolis.
> >
> > Taking inappropriate citation of OS's in message header lessons from Tim
> > "Master of Inappropriate Citation of OS's in Message Headers" Martin?
> >
> Don't look now, but there's a poppycock in your balderdash garden,

You are erroneously presupposing the existence of my "balderdash garden".

> and it's not tending your flowers.

You are erroneously presupposing the existence of my "balderdash garden".

> > > (I heard Tim is better, so I figured, What the heck.)}
> >
> > What you figured is irrelevant.
>
> Well, I figured that the irrelevancy of my figuring would add up to
> the figure eight.

Illogical.

> So go figure...

Unnecessary, Karel.

> (*) MGF: My Gut Feeling

Irrelevant, as the truth is independent of your "gut feelings".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 18:56:26
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:24
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <Qom14.7666$[e-mail]>, Aaron Dimsdale
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > >
> > >Are your glasses dirty as well as Aaron's?
> >
> > Bennett does not wear glasses.
>
> Incorrect.  He does wear glasses.

Note:  no retraction from Dimsdale.  No surprise there.

> However, he was wearing contact lenses when he replied to Marty's post.

Prove it, if you think you can.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 18:23:19
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (None Of Your Business) said:

>Ouch, that hurts leotard.

>It may be hard, but look again.  It carries the exact same weight as your
> statement below.

If that is your interpretation then you don't know jack shilt about
business.



>[e-mail] wrote in <38476277$1$yrgbherq$[e-mail]>:
>>[e-mail] (None Of Your Business) said:
>>
>>>BTW, I can't think of anyone I know who's been killed by a gun.
>>
>>Unless you're drug dealer or friends with them, what is your point? Other
>>then to show you're a near moron by using an association that has no
>>relevance.
>>
>>>>[e-mail]:
>>>>BTW, I can't think of corporation that failed except when the big bucks
>>>>guys didn't know what the business was about, or refused to accept
>>>>changes in the market.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               03-Dec-99 18:47:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:25
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail]

 larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

>> > That's not coercive.  It's a package deal.  Microsoft can't force
>> > computer distributors to put Windows on their machines; but they _can_
>> > say that "if you sell a computer with windows, we'll give you a massive
>> > discount on it".
>>
>> Which is a direct violation of U. S. Fair Trade Laws
>Precisely the point.


Are you in Special Ed? The issue is not the discount. The issue is that no
one gets the discount if they sell anything but Windoze.


>Why on earth is such a straightforward transaction illegal?  What kind of
>crazy law is that?

Your the one who is not thinking with a full set of brains, and resisting
an education.


_____________
Ed Letourneau <[e-mail]>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            04-Dec-99 00:34:19
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:25
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:03:07, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

[snip]
>
> That's when things get interesting.  For the sake of your society, a
> person's property is not deemed to be of their own control.  How does that
> jive with the right to own property?  Or the American slogan of being for
> "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
>
On a somewhat unrelated, yet debatebly funny note; I came across the
nymphomanic version of that motto:

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Penis"

It brought tears to my eyes. Eventually.
(Wasn't it that Lewinsky woman who said it first?)

[snip again]

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            04-Dec-99 00:34:19
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:25
Subj: Re: Sorry wrong newgroup.... {It's an old group, dummy!}

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

I see Marty is up to his usual tricks again. Consistent with common
sense, I am deleting all but the relevant elements from his post:

> > > what

Well, that just about sums it all up, doesn't it?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            04-Dec-99 00:34:23
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:25
Subj: Re: Windows 1.0 was running in 1983, Mac appeared in 1984

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

COMA clipped. I'm not brain-dead (enough).

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:24:32, [e-mail] (Andrew Irvine) wrote:

>
> I agree, windows only became an imitation of the mac by windows 95...
>
Isn't that an insult to just about every Mac in existence?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it.
Jam tomorrow, now - that'll keep them going for ever.
(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            03-Dec-99 17:15:21
  To: All                                               03-Dec-99 21:12:25
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Chad Mulligan wrote:

>
>
> "josco" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Stuart Fox wrote:

> > What boob gave you that unacceptable definition of Y2K compliance ?
> >
>
> That would be Boob Gerbil.

No such person.  Maybe name calling is best left to the children and their
child games.

Y2K compliance is serious to people responsible for Y2K compliance.  The
lack of help and clarity a vendor provides impacts their business and
customer relations.

We'll see in 2000 what damages result and with those damages, we'll see
what are the impacts and losses.  After then, lawyers, oh the lawyers.
Not even the Lidless Eye of Mordor could lose such a hoard on the world.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+